CC - Item 4A - Continued Public Hearing on Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01 (Prospect Villa)ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BEN KIM, ACTING CITY MANAGE
DATE: APRIL 12, 2022
SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
21-01 AND ZONE CHANGE 21-01 (PROSPECT VILLA)
On March 22, 2022, the City Council continued the public hearing on Specific Plan Amendment
21-01 and Zone Change 21-01, to the next scheduled City Council Meeting of April 12, 2022, in
order address public comments that were received the night of the meeting.
Del Mar Property, LLC has submitted entitlement applications requesting to amend the Zoning
Map by changing the zone of 7539 & 7545 Garvey Avenue (APN Nos. 5286-022-009 and 5286-
022-010) from Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan,
Incentivized Mixed -Use (GSP-MU) zone, for the development of a new residential/commercial
mixed-use development. The project proposes the construction of a seven -story mixed-use
development with 6,346 square feet of nonresidential (commercial) use on the first floor and 75
residential units on the first through seventh floors. Of the 75 residential units, 30 are live/work
units and 45 are residential apartments. The project also proposes 147 parking spaces and 12,547
square feet of landscaping. The project also includes a text amendment to the Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan permitting sit-down restaurants with a minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet
to obtain an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) for beer/wine sales in the Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan (GSP) and Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed -Use (GSP-MU) zones.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The City of Rosemead acting as a Lead Agency has completed an Initial Study to determine if
the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was
prepared and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City of Rosemead has concluded that the project
would have significant impacts unless mitigated; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration
MND) was prepared. The MND reflects the independent judgment of the City as a lead agency
per CEQA Guidelines. The project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code
section 65962.5.
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
City Council Meeting
April 12, 2022
Page 2 of 6
A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was distributed for
a 20 -day public review and comment period from February 16, 2022 to March 7, 2022. The
Mitigated Negative Declaration, along with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are
attached as Attachment "G".
On March 7, 2022, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project and adoption
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to the
City Council. The Planning Commission considered the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration before making its recommendation.
DISCUSSION
On March 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing
to receive oral and written testimony relative to Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone
Change 21-01. Analysis of the proposed project is provided in the Planning Commission Staff
Report. The Planning Commission Staff Report, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, and
Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 are included in this report as Attachments "C", "D", and
E", respectively.
As part of Planning Commission discussion, staff addressed questions and provided background
on the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. In addition, staff and the applicant's Architect provided
clarifications on LA County Fire Department's requirements and review procedures for projects.
The Planning Commission's questions were addressed once these clarifications were provided.
At the end of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council
approve Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01.
The City Council public hearing was scheduled on March 22, 2022, however, due to extent of
the public comments received by the City Clerk's Office that day, staff requested the City
Council continue the public hearing to April 12, 2022. The City Council Staff Report is attached
as Attachment "F".
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
During the 20 -day public review and comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the City received a total of two letters from
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters. The letter from Mitchell M. Tsai is a public records request. Copies of the
letters and responses to the comments were prepared by the City's Environmental Consultant,
Phil Martin & Associates, and are attached as Attachment "H".
The Planning Commission received one oral testimony from the public during the public hearing.
The testimony was from a member of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters who
believes the City should require developers to hire local and trained workforce within the
community.
City Council Meeting
April 12, 2022
Page 3 of 6
PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
On March 22, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received three public comments from the Law
Offices of Mitchell M. Tsai, Resident Nancy Eng, and Daisy Lin, attached as attachments "I",
J", and "K", respectively. A summary of each public comment is provided below.
Law Offices of Mitchell M.
The Law Offices of Mitchell M. Tsai submitted an extensive letter to the City, raising concerns
with the environmental clearance for the project. Since the letter was received on the day of the
public hearing and staff was unable to review the comments in detail, staff requested that the
public hearing be continued to the next regular City Council Meeting.
Since the meeting, staff has been working with the City's Environmental Consultant and City
Attorney's Office on providing responses to the concerns raised in in Mr. Tsai's letter, which
includes, but is not limited to the hiring of skilled and trained construction workforce and the
MND failing to support impacts to traffic, noise, lighting, etc. Based on the review of the issues
raised by Mr. Tsai, staff believes that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project
is compliant with CEQA Guidelines. The City's Environmental Consultant's responses to the
comments raised in the letter can be found in Attachment "L". In addition, it will also be
presented at the City Council Meeting.
Public Comments Received from Resident Nancy Eng
Resident Nancy Eng addressed concerns related to traffic congestion and circulation within the
neighboring streets and inquired if the MND took into consideration the schools that were nearby
and other surrounding projects. Ms. Eng also inquired if the parking structure will have a
ventilation system to reduce car emissions and fumes to the homes on Prospect Avenue.
A traffic study was prepared for the project by Ganddini Group, Inc. Based on the traffic study,
the proposed project would not result in any new significant traffic impact impacts or mitigation
measures. In addition, the proposed project is forecasted to generate fewer than 50 net new AM
or PM peak hour trips and is therefore, exempt from preparation of a Level of Service analysis
based on the City -established guidelines. The City's Contract Traffic Engineer has reviewed the
traffic study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and has deemed it acceptable. In addition, it
was determined that the project would not have any significant operational traffic impacts.
During the environmental review process, the City's Environmental Consultant sent letters to
two school districts that would serve the project site (Garvey School District and Alhambra
Unified School District) to ensure their schools would not be impacted by the increase in
students that would be generated by the project. In addition, during the 20 -day public review and
comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, the Notice of Intent and Notice of Public Hearing for Specific Plan
Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01 were mailed to both school districts. Since neither
school districts provided comments to the project, it can be assumed that they do not have any
City Council Meeting
April 12, 2022
Page 4 of 6
issues with the project. While the project would incrementally generate new students to the
schools that would serve the project, no impacts that require mitigation were identified.
In response to Ms. Eng's concerns regarding the fumes and emissions from the parking structure,
the parking structure will comply with the California Building Code (CBC). Since the structure
does not include two open sides, the proposed parking structure will provide a mechanical
ventilation system and exhaust system in accordance with the California Mechanical Code.
Lastly, the CEQA analysis did take cumulative development projects into consideration in the
mitigation measures.
Public Comments Received from Daisy Lin
Daisy Lin expressed her opposition for the Prospect Villa Development, as the seven -story
building does not match the surrounding neighborhood and may affect her quality of life. The
project meets the height requirement permitted by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan at 75 feet.
Staff has worked closely with the applicant to ensure the project is constructed within the
limitations of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures
have been incorporated to ensure there are no significant impacts.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS TO THE PROJECT PLANS
Since March 22, 2022, staff has received a few phone inquiries from neighboring residents
requesting that a left turn only sign be required for vehicles exiting the project to deter vehicular
traffic from entering into the residential neighborhood. Staff has reviewed the request with the
City's Traffic Consultant and since the development consists of a majority of residential use,
conditioning the project to a left turn only when exiting the site is a feasible addition. The Project
applicant is also agreeable to this condition. Therefore, staff has incorporated a condition of
approval, requiring a left turn only sign be installed at the driveway fronting Prospect Avenue.
The applicant has informed staff that they have decided to incorporate solar panels as alternative
energy for the project, which qualifies for an additional 30 Community Benefit points, totaling
their points to 161 points. Staff has amended Condition of Approval No. 38 to incorporate the
additional Community Benefit. A copy of the Conditions of Approval can be found in
Attachment "M".
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony;
2. Introduce the first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 1008 (Attachment "A"),
approving Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01; and
3. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2022-18 (Attachment `B") for the adoption of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
City Council Meeting
April 12, 2022
Page 5 of 6
file the Notice of Determination for the project.
FISCAL IMPACT — None
STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT — Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01 are
consistent with the Land Use and Zoning Goal of the City's 2030 Strategic Plan (Goal H) as the
actions include:
Explore adding residential uses as permitted uses along major commercial corridors and
specifically Valley Boulevard; and
Identify the appropriate planning tools to encourage mixed use development that includes
housing along the commercial corridors.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Prepared by:
Annie Lao
Associate Planner
Submitted•
44a
Lily T. Valenzuela
Planning and Economic Development Manager
Attachment A: Ordinance 1008
Attachment B: City Council Resolution 2022-18
Attachment C: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated March 7, 2022 (without attachments)
Attachment D: Planning Commission Minutes, dated March 7, 2022
Attachment E: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02
Attachment F: City Council Staff Report, dated March 22, 2022 (without attachments)
Attachment G: Mitigated Negative Declaration, along with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (Appendices on USB Drive)
Attachment H: Written Public Comments Received during the 20 -Day Review Period and
City Council Meeting
April 12, 2022
Page 6 of 6
Response to Comments
Attachment I: Public Comment from Law Offices of Mitchell M. Tsai, dated March 22, 2022
Attachment J: Public Comment from Nancy Eng, dated March 22, 2022
Attachment K: Public Comment from Daisy Lin, dated March 22, 2022
Attachment L: Response to the Law Offices of Mitchell M. Tsai's Public Comment Letter by
Phil Martin & Associates, dated April 6, 2022
Attachment M: Project Conditions of Approval
Attachment N: Architectural Plans
Attachment A
Ordinance No. 1008
ORDINANCE NO. 1008
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 21-01 AND SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 21-01 TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING
THE ZONE OF 7539 & 7545 GARVEY AVENUE (APN NOS. 5286-022-009
AND 5286-022-010) FROM GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (GSP) TO
GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN, INCENTIVIZED MIXED-USE
GSP-MU) ZONE, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND
APPROVE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE GARVEY AVENUE
SPECIFIC PLAN PERMITTING SIT-DOWN RESTAURANTS WITH A
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET TO OBTAIN AN
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT (AUP) FOR BEER/WINE SALES IN
THE GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (GSP) AND GARVEY AVENUE
SPECIFIC PLAN, INCENTIVIZED MIXED-USE (GSP-MU) ZONES
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2021, Del Mar Property LLC submitted entitlement applications
for the construction of a seven -story, mixed-use development with 6,346 square feet of
nonresidential (commercial) use and 75 residential units; and
WHEREAS, 7539 & 7545 Garvey Avenue are located in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan
GSP) zone; and
WHEREAS, the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan provides the criteria for specific plan
amendments and amendments to the Specific Plan may be requested by the applicant or by the
City at any time pursuant to Section 65453(a) of the California Government Code and Rosemead
Municipal Code Title 17, Article 5, Chapter 17.150; and
WHEREAS, Section 65453(a) of the California Government Code states a specific plan
shall be prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a general plan, except that a
specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as
deemed necessary by the legislative body. Section 17.150.040, adoption of, or amendment to, a
specific plan relating to land use may be initiated by the City or by submittal of a Master Plan.
When initiated by a master plan, the person shall file a petition with the City and pay a filing fee
as required in Chapter 17.120 of [Title 17]; and
WHEREAS, Section 17.152.060 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the purpose
and criteria for a Zone Change; and
WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government and Rosemead
Municipal Code Sections 17.152.040 authorizes the City Council to approve, approve in modified
form, or deny the Specific Plan Amendment or Zone Change; and
1
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the
project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of the analysis within
the Initial Study, the City has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on
the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures and has therefore prepared an
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; and
WHEREAS, Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 includes text amendments to Rosemead
Municipal Code Section 17.21 - Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Zoning District," to incorporate the
text amendment to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and
advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Zone Change 21-01 and
Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and recommended that the City Council approve Specific Plan
Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2022, forty-three (43) notices were sent to property owners
within a 300 -feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public
locations, on-site, published in the Rosemead Reader, and filed with the Los Angeles County
Clerk, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time, and location of the public
hearing for Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01, pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2022, the City Council continued the public hearing on Specific
Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01, to the next regularly scheduled City Council
Meeting on April 12, 2022, in order to address public comments that were received at the night of
the meeting;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 12, 2022, to
consider the Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01; and
WHEREAS, the City Council fully studied the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and
Zone Change, considered all public comments and all written and verbal and testimony; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has also
reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period prior to the
approval of this project.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do
existto justify approving Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 in accordance with Section 65453(a) of
the California Government Code and Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060(A) as
follows:
2
A. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with all other provisions of the
General Plan.
FINDING: The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan was adopted in 2018 and its requirements
for adoption included updating the General Plan to eliminate inconsistencies between the two
planning documents. The proposed project continues to be internally consistent with all other
provisions of the General Plan. The project proposes to change the zone from GSP to GSP-MU
and to remain within the buildout development capacity of 1.18 million square feet of commercial
development and 892 dwelling units.
In addition, the project proposes a text amendment to permit sit-down restaurants with a
minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an AUP for beer/wine sales in the GSP to
GSP-MU zones. Sit-down restaurants and alcohol licensing are established uses in the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan.
Because the specific plan amendment changes from one established zone to another, from
GSP to GSP-MU, and the text changes are intended to harmonize the specific plan with the
Freeway Corridor Mixed -Use (FCMU) Overlay regulations, this specific plan amendment is
consistent with the General Plan.
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
FINDING: The subject site is located within the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. The
subject site consists of two parcels totaling approximately 0.95 acres of vacant land. The Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan was developed to create an attractive and desirable neighborhood "main
street' focusing on creating a vibrant corridor with visible pedestrian activity. The proposed
amendment would change the zoning district within the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan from GSP
to GSP-MU, for the construction of residential/commercial mixed-use development. In addition,
the project proposes atext amendment to permit sit-down restaurants with aminimum requirement
of 1,000 square feet to obtain an AUP for beer/wine sales in the GSP to GSP-MU zones. Sit-down
restaurants and alcohol licensing are established uses in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study
was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the "project' may have a significant effect
on the environment. On the basis of the analysis within the Initial Study, the City has concluded
that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case as mitigation measures have been incorporated.
Because the proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the General Plan and Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan by allowing the development of a residential/commercial mixed-use
development that promotes Garvey Avenue as a vibrant corridor, harmonizes existing land uses,
and will not result in significant environment impacts after mitigation, this finding is satisfied.
C. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating
3
characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle
access, and public services and utilities and is served by highways and streets adequate in width
and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate,
to ensure that the proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise
constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is
located.
FINDING: The subject site is located within the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. The
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan amended the Zoning Map and General Plan land use designations
for approximately 88 parcels to support the development of over 1.18 million square feet of
commercial development, 892 dwelling units, 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. The
site would be physically suited for provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public
services and utilities.
In addition, the applicant has obtained will -serve letters from Golden State Water Company
and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. In addition, a traffic study was prepared for the
project by Ganddini Group, Inc. Based on the traffic study, the proposed project would not result
in any new significant traffic impact impacts or mitigation measures compared to the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan TIA/EIR. The proposed project is forecasted to generate fewer than 50 net
new AM or PM peak hour trips and is therefore exempt from preparation of a Level of Service
analysis based on the City -established guidelines. The nonresidential component of the proposed
project also satisfies the City -established project type screening for local serving retail and may be
presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact. In addition, the proposed project satisfies
the City -established low VMT area screening criteria. Therefore, the proposed Project satisfies the
City of Rosemead VMT screening criteria and may be presumed to result in a less than significant
VMT impact. The City of Rosemead's Contract Traffic Engineer has reviewed the traffic study
and Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and has deemed it acceptable.
Furthermore, it was determined that the project would not have any significant operational traffic
impacts.
The proposed text amendment to permit sit-down restaurants with aminimum requirement
of 1,000 square feet to obtain an AUP for beer/wine sales in the GSP to GSP-MU zones would
require review by both the Public Safety Department and Community Development Department
and require the typical conditions of approval that are applied to alcohol-related CUPS. The
amendment is intended to assist the City's restaurant business community that are facing economic
hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic. The AUP process is administrative, approved by the
Director of Community Development, and could be completed at afraction of the time and cost of
a CUP. Sit-down restaurants and alcohol licensing are established uses in the Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan, and will not affect physical suitability, access and circulation, or the availability of
public services.
For these reasons, the subject site is physically suitable, has adequate access and
circulation, and provides sufficient public services so it does not endanger, jeopardize, or constitute
a hazard to the property or other improvements within the vicinity.
4
SECTION 2. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do
exist to justify approving Zone Change 21-01 in accordance with Rosemead Municipal Code
Section 17.152.060(B) as follows:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan.
FINDING: The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan was adopted in 2018 and its requirements
for adoption included updating the General Plan to eliminate inconsistencies between the two
planning documents. The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan amended the General Plan designation
for approximately 88 parcels to support the development of over 1.18 million square feet of
commercial development, 892 dwelling units, 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.
Because the project only proposes to change the zoning designation from one established zone to
another, from GSP to GSP-MU, the project will be consistent with the General Plan and the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan.
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
FINDING: The subject site is located within the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. The
subject site consists of two parcels totaling approximately 0.95 acres of vacant land. The proposed
amendment would change the zoning district within the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan from GSP
to GSP-MU for the construction of residential/commercial mixed-use development. The Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan was developed to create an attractive and desirable neighborhood "main
street' focusing on creating a vibrant corridor with visible pedestrian activity.
The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study
was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the "project' may have a significant effect
on the environment. On the basis of the analysis within the Initial Study, the City has concluded
that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case as mitigation measures have been incorporated.
Because the proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan by allowing the development of a residential/commercial mixed-use development that
promotes Garvey Avenue as a vibrant corridor, and will not result in significant environment
impacts after mitigation, this finding is satisfied.
C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions
of this Zoning Code.
FINDING: The proposed zone change will amend the Zoning Map from GSP to GSP-
MU. The GSP-MU allows vertical mixed-use, where commercial uses are on the ground floor,
5
with residential uses above. The proposed project meets the GSP-MU development standards and
would be in compliance with the applicable development standards of the Zoning Code, and
therefore is internally consistent with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code.
D. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating
characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access,
and public services and utilities and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and
improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to
ensure that the proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise
constitute ahazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.
FINDING: The subject site is located within the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. The
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan amended the Zoning Map and General Plan land use designations
for approximately 88 parcels to support the development of over 1.18 million square feet of
commercial development, 892 dwelling units, 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. The
site would be physically suited for provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public
services and utilities.
In addition, the applicant has obtained will -serve letters from Golden State Water Company
and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. In addition, a traffic study was prepared for the
project by Ganddini Group, Inc. Based on the traffic study, the proposed project would not result
in any new significant traffic impact impacts or mitigation measures compared to the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan TIA/EIR. The proposed project is forecasted to generate fewer than 50 net
new AM or PM peak hour trips and is therefore exempt from preparation of a Level of Service
analysis based on the City -established guidelines. The nonresidential component of the proposed
project also satisfies the City -established project type screening for local serving retail and may be
presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact. In addition, the proposed project satisfies
the City -established low VMT area screening criteria. Therefore, the proposed Project satisfies the
City of Rosemead VMT screening criteria and may be presumed to result in a less than significant
VMT impact. The City of Rosemead's Contract Traffic Engineer has reviewed the traffic study
and Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and has deemed it acceptable.
Furthermore, it was determined that the project would not have any significant operational traffic
impacts.
For these reasons, the subject site is physically suitable, has adequate access and
circulation, and provides sufficient public services so it does not endanger, jeopardize, or constitute
a hazard to the property or other improvements within the vicinity.
SECTION 3. Approval of Specific Plan and Zoning Map Amendment The City
Council HEREBY AMENDS the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and the City's Zoning Map to
change the zone of 7539 & 7545 Garvey Avenue from Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) to
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed -Use (GSP-MU) zone.
6
SECTION 4. Approval of Specific Plan and Zoning Code Text Amendment. The City
Council HEREBY AMENDS Figure 3.3 Land Use Table of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and
Table 17.21.020.1 of the Rosemead Municipal Code included as Exhibits "A" and `B",
respectively, and the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, to permit sit-down restaurants with aminimum
requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an AUP for beer/wine sales in the GSP and GSP-MU
zones, provided that a valid license from California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
ABC) is obtained.
SECTION 5. City Manager Authority. The City Manager is authorized to execute such
amendments necessary to implement the specific plan, zoning code, and zoning map amendments,
as set forth in this ordinance.
SECTION 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that, should any provision,
section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance or any part
thereof, be rendered or declared invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of
competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such decision or action shall not
affect the validity of the remaining section or portions of the Ordinance or part thereof. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have independently adopted the remaining provisions,
sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words of this Ordinance
irrespective of the fact that any one or more provisions, sections, subsections, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, phrases, or words may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 7. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance
and shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and post a certified copy of the full Ordinance in
the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption and within 15 days after adoption
of the Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary ofthe Ordinance with the names of the
Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty
3 0) days after the date of its adoption.
SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of
ATTEST:
Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney
7
Polly Low, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
2022.
Exhibits:
A. Amendments to Figure 3.3 Land Use Table of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan
B. Amendments to Table 17.21.020.1 of the Rosemead Municipal Code
C. Conditions of Approval
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF ROSEMEAD )
I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of
California, hereby attest to the above signature and certify that Ordinance No. 1008 was first
introduced at the regular meeting of , 2022 by first reading. Said Ordinance
was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead at a regular meeting held
on the day of , 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
9
Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
Figure 3.3 Land Use Table
Allowed Uses Key: GSP GSP- MU Specific Regulations
P Permitted Use
CUP Conditional Use
PerP7ermitAUPRequired
Administrative Use
TUP Required
Use Not Permitted
Temporary Use
Single -Family Dwellings P
Two-Family Dwellings (Duplex) P
Multi-Family Dwellings P
Multi-Family Dwellings (as part of a P A mixed-use project application must be
Mixed -Use Project) accompanied by an economic feasibility study,
market study, or proforma analysis prepared by a
reputable economic or marketing professional or
firm. Economic feasibility study, market study, or
proforma analysis findings must support the
proposed mixed-use project, the project's land use
mix components, and the extent of the land use. City
of Rosemead staff will evaluate and determine the
marketing professional/firm credentials to prepare
such study. The Community Benefit Incentive is not
applicable to these economic feasibility studies,
proforma analyses, or market studies.
Artist Live/Workspace AUP P
Single -Room Occupancy (as defined by CUP CUP See RMC Section 17.30.200 (Single Room
17.30.200) Occupancy)
Residential accessory uses and structures P P See RMC Section 17.32 (Accessory Structures) and
Section 17.12.030
Home Occupations, including Cottage Food P P
Operations (Accessory)
GARVEY AVENUE SPEC IFIC PLAN, FEBRUARY 2018 3-9
Allowed Uses Key:
ES
Transitional Housing
GSP- OS/P GSP- R/C
P
GSP Specific Regulations
Supportive Housing P
Child Care Home, Large Family (9 to 14) AUP
See RMC Section 17.30.160 (Large and Small
Family Child Day Care Home Facilities)
Child Care Home, Small Family (8 or fewer) p See RMC Section 17.30.160 (Large and Small
Family Child Day Care Home Facilities)
Residential Care Facilities (6 or fewer) P
Residential Care Facilities (7 or more)
LIC A
CUP
Colleges and Universities P
Cultural Institutions CUP CUP CUP CUP
Park and Recreation Facilities P P P P For lighted facilities, see RMC Section 17.68.060
Places of Religious Assembly CUP CUP CUP
Public Utility Facilities AUP AUP AUP AUP
Telecommunication Facilities/Wireless
Telecommunication Facilities
CUP CUP CUP CUP
Educational Institution (Private) CUP CUP CUP
Community Garden P P P P
Open Space, Public P
Hiking Trails, Public
Animal Grooming Services
P
P P P No overnight boarding of animals allowed.
Veterinary P P P
GARVEY AVENUE SPEC IFIC PLAN, FEBRUARY 2018 3-10
Allowed Uses Key: GSP- OS/P GSP- R/C GSP GSP- MU I Specific Regulations
Drive -Through Businesses AUP See RMC Section 17.30.110
Eating and Drinking Establishments: No P P P
Alcohol Beverage Sales
Eating and Drinking Establishments: With CUP CUP See RMC Section 17.30.040 (Alcohol Beverage
On Sale" ABC License Sales)
A sit-down restaurant with the minimum requirement
of 1,000 s.f. of floor area or larger is permitted to
serve beer/wine with the approval of an AUT,
provided that a valid license from the California
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is
obtained.
A regional or national chain restaurant larger than
6,000 s.f. is permitted to serve alcohol without a
CUP, provided that a valid license from the
California Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control is obtained.
GARVEY AVENUE SPEC IFIC PLAN, FEBRUARY 2018 3 - 1 1
Sidewalk Dining (accessory use to eating and __ p p p 1) Location Requirements:
drinking establishments)
a) A sidewalk dining, where permitted, may be
located on the public right-of-way adjacentto
the restaurant serving the sidewalk dining.
Approval for sidewalk dining may be granted
after review ofthe application by appropriate
City departments and issuance of an
encroachment permit or license agreement.
b) All sidewalk dining shall leave clear space
for pedestrian movement between the outer
edge of the dining and the curb line. Sidewalk
dining located at street intersections shall
provide a 15' clear space radial to the comer.
If pedestrian traffic is especially heavy, the
Public Works Director may require
additional clear space to ensure adequate
room for pedestrian movements.
c) No sidewalk dining shall be located within
15' of a bus stop or bus shelter.
GARVEY AVENUE SPEC IFIC PLAN, FEBRUARY 2018 3 - 1 2
Allowed Uses Key: GSP- OS/P GSP- R/C GSP GSP- MU Specific Regulations
2) Physical Design Requirements:
a) All furnishings of sidewalk dining
including, but not limited to, tables, chairs
and decorative accessories, shall be readily
movable.
b) No part of sidewalk dining may be
permanently attached to public space. The
person to whom the business license for the
dining is issued shall repair any damage
done by the dining to public property.
c) When a sidewalk dining or the adjacent
restaurant is occupied, no exit door shall be
locked, bolted, or otherwise fastened or
obstructed so that the door cannot be
opened from the inside.
d) Chairs and tables shall be arranged so as to
provide for clear access to an exit. No part
of an aisle shall be used in any way that will
obstruct its use as an exit or that will
constitute a hazardous condition.
e) Sidewalk dining shall not be arranged so as
to restrict the use of emergency exits, fire
escapes on adjacent buildings and access to
fire hydrants.
f) Freestanding or table mounted shade
umbrellas shall be kept in good repair and
maybe used only where space permits.
g) Freestanding heating or misting equipment
maybe used only where space permits.
GARVEY AVENUE SPEC IFIC PLAN, FEBRUARY 2018 3 -1 3
h) Freestanding lamps are not permitted.
Flashing or moving lights are not permitted.
Table candles may be used. Electric wiring
shall not be placed in pedestrian areas.
i) Awnings shall be kept in good repair.
O Seating and accessories and other
components of the sidewalk dining shall be
maintained in a neat and safe manner.
k) The height of a railing, fence, or planter
including plantings) used to establish
boundaries of seating areas shall be at least
24" in height but not higher than 36".
Planters and/or plantings shall be
maintained in a neat and orderly manner,
and shall not encroach past the approved
sidewalk dining area.
1) Plank -style picnic tables with bench seating
are not permitted.
3) Dining Operation Requirements:
a) Sidewalk dining shall be operated and
maintained in accordance with the
applicant's building plans approved by the
Community Development Director and the
Public Works Director.
b) The owner(s) shall be responsible for the
removal of all wrappings, litter, and food,
and shall provide thorough and sanitary
cleaning for sidewalk dining area and the
immediate surroundings of such area each
GARVEY AVENUE SPEC IFIC PLAN, FEBRUARY 2018 3 -1 3
Allowed Uses Key: GSP- OS/P GSP- R/C GSP GSP- MU Specific Regulations M
day after the eating and drinking
establishment closes.
c) Sidewalk dining shall not operate earlier
than 8:00 a.m. or later than 12:00 a.m.
midnight).
d) If alcoholic beverages are permitted in the
sidewalk dining area by an Administrative
Use Permit (AUP) or Conditional Use
Permit (CUP), a landscape separation shall
be required to prevent the passing and/or
carrying of alcoholic beverages out of the
sidewalk area and signs noting such
requirement shall be posted in conspicuous
locations.
Entertainment and Spectator Sports:
CUP CUP
1-149 seats or under 15,000 s.f.
Entertainment and Spectator Sports: 150+
CUPseatsorover15,000 s.f.
Financial Services P P P
Food and Beverage Retail Sales p p P See RMC Section 17.30.040 (Alcohol Beverage
Sales
See RMC Section 17.30.130
A hotel project application must be accompanied by
an economic feasibility study, market study, or
proforma analysis prepared by a reputable economic
Hotel (50+ guest rooms) CUP CUP or marketing professional or firm. The analysis' or
study's findings must support the proposed hotel
project. City of Rosemead staff will evaluate and
determine the marketing professional/firm
credentials to prepare such study. The Community
Benefit Incentive is notapplicable to this market
GARVEY AVENUE SPEC IFIC PLAN, FEBRUARY 2018 3-14
Allowed Uses Key: GSP-OS/P GSP-R/C GSP GS]P-MU I Specific Regulations
study, economic feasibility study, nor proforma
analysis.
Two parking spaces designed for and identified as
tour bus parking only" are required to be provided
by a hotel facility in the GSP-MU zone.
Health/Fitness Club (Small) P P P
Health/Fitness Club (Large) AUP AUP AUP
Medical Office Prohibited medical services: extended care,
P P specifically, convalescent health or nursing care;
medical or custodial care provided in cases of
prolonged illness or rehabilitation.
Office p p p
Parking, Commercial (Non -accessory) P AUP AUP
Tour Bus Parking (Accessory - Hotel only) Two parking spaces designed for and identified as
P tour bus parking only" are required to be provided
by a hotel facility in the GSP-MU zone.
Personal Service (General and Studio) P P P
Repair Service (including bicycles, excluding
automotive)
P P P
Retail Sales (General) Prohibited Retail Uses: building materials and
P P P supplies sales, firearms sales, liquor stores, second
hand stores, and pawn stores.
Tutoring Services (Small) P P P
Tutoring Services (Large) AUP AUP AUP
GARVEY AVENUE SPEC IFIC PLAN, FEBRUARY 2018 3 - 1 5
Page 1 of 7
17.21.020 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Land Uses and Permit Requirements.
Table 17.21.020.1, Uses in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan District, identifies the uses allowed in each such
zoning district, and identifies the land use permits required, if any, to establish each use subject to section
17.08.050. Where the last column in Table 17.21.020.1 (Specific Use Regulations) includes a section reference
number, the regulations in the referenced section apply to the use in addition to those shown in Table
17.21.020.1.
Table 17.21.020.1
Uses in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan District
GSP -
OS/P
GSP -
R/C
GSP GSP -
MU*
Specific Regulations
Allowed Uses Key:
P Permitted Use Conditional
CUP Conditional Use Permit Required
AUP Administrative Use Permit Required
— Use Not Permitted
TUP Temporary Use
Residential
Single-Family Dwellings — P — —
Two-Family Dwellings (Duplex) — P — —
Multi-Family Dwellings — P — —
Multi-Family Dwellings (as part of a
Mixed Use Project)
— — — P A mixed use project application
must be accompanied by an
economic feasibility study
prepared by a reputable economic
or marketing professional or firm.
Economic feasibility study's
findings must support the
proposed mixed use project, the
land use mix components of the
project, and the extent of the land
use. City of Rosemead staff will
evaluate and determine the
marketing professional/firm
credentials to prepare such study.
The Community Benefit Incentive is
not applicable to this economic
feasibility study.
Second Dwelling Unit (as defined
by § 17.30.190)
— P — — See RMC Section 17.30.190
(Second Dwelling Units)
Artist Live/Work Space — AUP — P
Single-Room Occupancy (as
defined by § 17.30.200)
— CUP — CUP See RMC Section 17.30.200 (Single
Room Occupancy)
Residential accessory uses and
structures
— P — P See RMC Section 17.32 (Accessory
Structures) and Section 17.12.030
Home Occupations, including
Cottage Food Operations
(Accessory)
— P — P
Care Uses
EXHIBIT “B”
Page 2 of 7
Transitional and Supportive
Housing
— P — —
Child Care Home, Large Family (9
to 14)
— AUP — — See RMC Section 17.30.160 (Large
and Small Family Child Day Care
Home Facilities)
Child Care Home, Small Family (8 or
fewer)
— P — — See RMC Section 17.30.160 (Large
and Small Family Child Day Care
Home Facilities)
Residential Care Facilities (6 or
fewer)
— P — —
Residential Care Facilities (7 or
more)
— CUP — —
Public and Civic
Colleges and Universities — — — P
Cultural Institutions CUP CUP CUP CUP
Park and Recreation Facilities P P P P For lighted facilities, see RMC
Section 17.68.060
Places of Religious Assembly — CUP CUP CUP
Public Utility Facilities AUP AUP AUP AUP
Telecommunication
Facilities/Wireless
Telecommunication Facilities
CUP CUP CUP CUP
Educational Institution (Private) — CUP CUP CUP
Community Garden P P P P
Open Space, Public P — — —
Hiking Trails, Public P — — —
* Medical Office, and Office uses are prohibited on ground floors in the GSP-MU Zone. If permitted within the
zoning area, Medical Office and Office uses are permitted on upper floors.
Commercial
Animal Grooming Services -- P P P No overnight boarding of animals
allowed.
Veterinary -- P P P
Drive-Through Businesses -- -- AUP -- See RMC Section 17.30.110
Eating and Drinking
Establishments: No
Alcohol Beverage Sales
-- P P P
Eating and Drinking
Establishments: With “On Sale”
ABC License
-- -- CUP CUP See RMC Section 17.30.040
(Alcohol Beverage Sales)
A sit-down restaurant with the
minimum requirement of 1,000
s.f. of floor area or larger is
permitted to serve beer/wine
with the approval of an AUP,
provided that a valid license from
the California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control is
obtained.
A regional or national chain
restaurant larger than 6,000 s.f. is
Page 3 of 7
permitted to serve alcohol without
a CUP, provided that a valid license
from the California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control is
obtained.
Sidewalk Dining (accessory use to
eating and drinking
establishments)
-- P P P 1) Location Requirements:
(a) A sidewalk dining, where
permitted, may be
located on the public
right-of-way adjacent to
the restaurant serving the
sidewalk dining. Approval
for sidewalk dining may
be granted after review of
the application by
appropriate City
departments and
issuance of an
encroachment permit or
license agreement.
(b) All sidewalk dining shall
leave clear space for
pedestrian movement
between the outer edge
of the dining and the curb
line. Sidewalk dining
located at street
intersections shall
provide a 15’ clear space
radial to the corner. If
pedestrian traffic is
especially heavy, the
Public Works Director
may require additional
clear space to ensure
adequate room for
pedestrian movements.
(c) No sidewalk dining shall
be located within 15’ of a
bus stop or bus shelter.
2) Physical Design Requirements:
(a) All furnishings of
sidewalk dining
including, but not
limited to, tables, chairs
and decorative
accessories, shall be
Page 4 of 7
readily movable.
(b) No part of sidewalk
dining may be
permanently attached
to public space. The
person to whom the
business license for the
dining is issued shall
repair any damage done
by the dining to public
property.
(c) When a sidewalk dining
or the adjacent
restaurant is occupied,
no exit door shall be
locked, bolted, or
otherwise fastened or
obstructed so that the
door cannot be opened
from the inside.
(d) Chairs and tables shall
be arranged so as to
provide for clear access
to an exit. No part of an
aisle shall be used in any
way that will obstruct its
use as an exit or that will
constitute a hazardous
condition.
(e) Sidewalk dining shall not
be arranged so as to
restrict the use of
emergency exits, fire
escapes on adjacent
buildings and access to
fire hydrants.
(f) Freestanding or table
mounted shade
umbrellas shall be kept
in good repair and may
be used only where
space permits.
(g) Freestanding heating or
misting equipment may
be used only where
space permits.
Page 5 of 7
(h) Freestanding lamps are
not permitted. Flashing
or moving lights are not
permitted. Table
candles may be used.
Electric wiring shall not
be placed in pedestrian
areas.
(i) Awnings shall be kept in
good repair.
(j) Seating and accessories
and other components
of the sidewalk dining
shall be maintained in a
neat and safe manner.
(k) The height of a railing,
fence, or planter
(including plantings)
used to establish
boundaries of seating
areas shall be at least
24” in height but not
higher than 36”.
Planters and/or
plantings shall be
maintained in a neat
and orderly manner,
and shall not encroach
past the approved
sidewalk dining area.
(l) Plank-style picnic tables
with bench seating are
not permitted.
3) Dining Operation
Requirements:
(a) Sidewalk dining shall be
operated and
maintained in
accordance with the
applicant's building
plans approved by the
Community
Development Director
and the Public Works
Director.
Page 6 of 7
(b) The owner(s) shall be
responsible for the
removal of all
wrappings, litter, and
food, and shall provide
thorough and sanitary
cleaning for sidewalk
dining area and the
immediate
surroundings of such
area each day after
the eating and
drinking establishment
closes.
(c) Sidewalk dining shall not
operate earlier than
8:00 a.m. or later than
12:00 a.m. (midnight).
(d) If alcoholic beverages
are permitted in the
sidewalk dining area by
an Administrative Use
Permit (AUP) or
Conditional Use Permit
(CUP), a landscape
separation shall be
required to prevent the
passing and/or carrying
of alcoholic beverages
out of the sidewalk area
and signs noting such
requirement shall be
posted in conspicuous
locations.
Health/Fitness Club (Small) -- P P P
Health/Fitness Club (Large) -- AUP AUP AUP
Medical Office
--
--
P
P
Prohibited medical services:
extended care, specifically,
convalescent health or nursing
care; medical or custodial care
provided in cases of prolonged
illness or rehabilitation.
Office -- P P P
Parking, Commercial (Non-
accessory)
P AUP AUP --
Tour Bus Parking (Accessory - Hotel
only)
--
--
--
P
Two parking spaces designed for
and identified as “tour bus parking
only” are required to be provided
Page 7 of 7
by a hotel facility in the GSP-MU
zone.
Personal Service (General and
Studio)
-- P P P
Repair Service (including bicycles,
excluding automotive)
-- P P P
Retail Sales (General)
--
P
P
P
Prohibited Retail Uses: building
materials and supplies sales,
firearms sales, liquor stores,
second hand stores, and pawn
stores.
Tutoring Services (Small) -- P P P
Tutoring Services (Large) -- AUP AUP AUP
C
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 21-01ZONE CHANGE 21-01
ORDINANCE NO.1008AND RESOLUTION 2022-18)
7539 & 7545GARVEY AVENUE
APNS: 5286-022-009 AND 5286-022-010)
CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL
APRIL12, 2022
Standard Conditions ofApprovals
1.Specific Plan Amendment 21-01and ZoneChange 21-
amendment oftheZoning Map bychanging thezoneof7539 & 7545 Garvey Avenue from
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) toGarvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-
Use (GSP-MU) zone, forthedevelopment ofaseven-story, mixed-usedevelopment with
6,346square feetofnonresidential (commercial) useonthefirstfloor and75residential units
onthefirstthrough seventh floors. Any revisions totheapproved plansmust beresubmitted
forthereview andapproval ofthePlanning Division.
2.Thefollowing conditions mustbecomplied tothesatisfaction ofthePlanning Division prior
tofinal approval oftheassociated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, oranyother
appropriate request.
3.Theconditions listed onthisexhibit shallbecopied directly ontoanydevelopment plans
subsequently submitted tothePlanning Division, Building andSafety Division, andPublic
Works Department.
4.Approval ofProject shallnottakeeffect foranypurpose until the applicant(s) have filed with
alloftheconditions ofapproval assetforth inthe letter ofapproval andthislist ofconditions
within ten (10) days from thePlanning Commission approval date.
5.The on-sitepublic hearing notice posting shallberemoved bythe end ofthe10-dayappeal
period ofProject.
6.Project isapproved foraperiodofone (1) year. Theapplicant(s) shall commence theapproved
project orrequest anextension within30calendar dayspriorto expiration. Theone (1) year
initialapproval period shall beeffective from thePlanning Commission approval date. For
the purpose ofthispetition, project commencement shall bedefined asbeginning the
permitting process with thePlanning andBuilding Divisions, solong astheproject isnot
abandoned. IfProject hasbeen unused, abandoned, ordiscontinued foraperiod ofone (1)
year, itshallbecome nullandvoid.
1
7.ThePlanning Commission hereby authorizes thePlanning Division tomake and/orapprove
minor modifications totheproject andtothese conditions ofapproval.
8.Project isgranted orapproved withthe Cityand itsPlanning Commission and CityCouncil
retaining and reserving theright andjurisdiction toreview andtomodify thepermit, including
theconditions ofapproval based onchanged circumstances. Changed circumstances include,
butarenotlimited to, themodification oftheuse, achange inscope, emphasis, size, ornature
oftheuse, ortheexpansion, alteration, reconfiguration, orchange ofuse. This reservation of
righttoreview isinaddition to, andnotin lieuof, therightoftheCity, itsPlanning
Commission, andCity Council toreview andrevoke ormodify any permit granted or
approved under theRosemead Municipal Code foranyviolations oftheconditions imposed
onProject.
9.Theapplicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, andholdharmless the Cityof Rosemead orits
agents, officers, andemployees from anyclaim, action, orproceeding against theCityof
Rosemead oritsagents, officers, oremployees toattack, setside, void, orannul, anapproval
of thePlanning Commission and/orCity Council concerningthe project, which action is
brought withinthetimeperiod provided bylaw.
10.The applicant(s) shallcomply with allFederal, State, and locallawsrelative totheapproved
use, including the requirements ofthePlanning, Building, Fire, Sheriff, andHealth
Departments.
11.Building permits willnotbeissued inconnection withanyproject untilsuch timeasallplan
check feesand allotherapplicable feesarepaidinfull. Prior toissuance ofbuilding permits,
any required school fees shallbepaid. The applicant shall provide theCity with written
verification ofcompliance from theapplicable school districts.
12.Thenumbers ofthe address signs shallbeatleast six (6) inches tall with aminimum character
width of3/4inch, contrasting incolor and easilyvisible atdriver'slevel from thestreet.
Materials, colors, location, andsize ofsuch address numbers shall beapproved bythe
Community Development Director, orhis/herdesignee, prior toinstallation.
13.The hours ofconstruction shall belimited from 7:00a.m. to8:00p.m., Monday through
Saturday. Noconstruction shalltake placeonSundays oronanyfederal holiday. The
applicant shallabide bythenoise control sections oftheRosemead Municipal Code.
14.TheBuilding andSafety Division, Planning Division, and Public Works Departmentshall
haveaccess totheproject siteatanytime during construction tomonitor progress.
15.All requirements oftheBuilding andSafety Division, Planning Division, andPublic Works
Department shallbecomplied with priortothefinal approval oftheproposed construction.
16.Allground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow prevention
2
devices, firevalves, A/Ccondensers, furnaces, andother equipment) shall belocated away
from public view oradequately screened bylandscaping orscreening walls soasnottobe
seenfrom the public right-of-way.
17. Allnewroof-top appurtenances and equipment shallbeadequately screened from view tothe
satisfaction ofthePlanning Division. Suchequipment shallnotexceed theheight ofthe
parapet wall. There shall benomechanical equipment located onthesides ofthebuilding.
18. Theparking area, including handicapped spaces, shall bepavedand re-painted periodically to
Citystandards tothesatisfaction ofthePlanning Division. Inaccordance withtheRosemead
Municipal Code, alldesignated parking stalls shall bedouble striped. Such striping shall be
maintained inaclear, visible, and orderly manner tothesatisfaction ofthePlanning Division.
19. Violations oftheconditions ofapproval may result incitation and/orinitiation ofrevocation
proceedings.
20. Theapplicant(s) shall keeptheelectrical and mechanical equipment and/oremergency exits
freeofanydebris, storage, furniture, etc., andmaintain aminimum clearance offive (5) feet.
Project Specific Conditions ofApproval
21. Allproperty that isvacant, under construction, orbeing demolished shallbetotally enclosed
around the perimeter byafencethatisaminimum ofsix (6) feetinheight asmeasured from
adjacent property, subject totheapproval oftheCommunity Development Director orother
designated officials. Thefollowing requirements shall be satisfied:
a. The required fence shall beadequately constructed from chain-link, lumber,
masonry orother approved materials. Thefence shall beentirely self-supporting
and shall notencroach orutilize structures orfencing on anyadjacent property
without priorwritten approval oftheadjacent property owner.
b. Thefence shall beinstalled priortotheinitiation ofany construction or demolition
andshallbecontinuously maintained ingood condition.
c. Signs stating "PRIVATE PROPERTY, NOTRESPASSING" shall beposted onthe
fence.
22. Afinalwall planshallbesubmitted tothePlanning Division forreview andapproval prior to
theissuance ofbuilding permits. Allwalls and/orfences height shallcomply withthe
requirements intheRosemead Municipal Code andshall consist ofdecorative material, which
match orcomplement theresidential buildings incolor, material, anddesign.
23. Thesite shallbemaintained inagraffiti-free state.
24. Thesiteshall bemaintained inaclean, weed andlitter-free state. All trash containers shallbe
stored intheapproved trashenclosure atalltimes. All trashandgarbage receptacles shall be
3
regularly inspected and cleaned, andmaintained inaclean, safe, andsanitary condition.
25. Alltrash enclosures shallbedesigned tobeanintegral part oftheoverall project design, and
utilize complementary colors andmaterials. Alltrashenclosures shall haveasolidroofcover
anddoors shallbeopaque, self-closing, andself-latching. Detailed elevations shallbe
submitted tothePlanning Division forreview, andifsatisfactory, approval, priortosubmittal
totheBuilding andSafetyDivision.
26. Afinallandscape andirrigation plan shallbesubmitted tothePlanning Division for review
andapproval prior totheissuance ofbuilding permits. Thelandscape andirrigation planshall
sWater Efficient Landscape Ordinance andwiththeGuidelines for
Implementation oftheWater Efficient Landscape Ordinance andinclude asprinkler system
with automatic timers andmoisture sensors.
27. All parking spaces shall comply with thecurrently applicable section oftheRosemead
Municipal Code. All covered parking spacesshall befreeand clear withnoobstruction.
28. Todeter vehicular traffic fromentering intotheresidential neighborhood, a -turn
signshallbeposted atthe
placement ofsuchsign.
29. Alldelivery vehicles forthenonresidential space ontheground level would enter the site
from Prospect Avenue andpark inadesignated loading area ontheground level for site
deliveries. Delivery trucks would berestricted totwoaxle trucks. Delivery trucks wouldnot
beallowed to parkalong either Prospect Avenue orGarvey Avenue.
30. Truck deliveries shalloccur only during off-peak hours sothat anypotential conflict between
trucks, residents, andcustomers ofthe project sitelanduseswill beminimal. Alltruck
deliveries shallcomply withRosemead Municipal Code Chapter 8.36.
31. Pickup trucks equipped toliftdumpsters shallbeutilized tomovesolid waste and recyclable
materials from thetrash enclosures tothestreet, adjacent tothe siteontheCitydesignated
dayfor trash collection fornormal trash collection. Attheend oftheday, theprivate pickup
truck wouldreturn thedumpsters totheirrespective location within theparking structure.
32. Prior tothe issuance ofBuilding permits, theDeveloper shalldevelop acomprehensive
Construction Management Plan, subject tothereview and approval ofthePlanning Division,
Building and Safety Division, andPublic Works Department. TheConstruction Management
Planshalladdress security of siteandequipment, noise, vibrations, traffic control, parking,
debris removal, staging, dustcontrol, sanitary facilities, and other potential construction
impacts, aswellasother details involving themeans and methods ofcompleting theproject,
including the construction equipment route. TheCityhastheauthority torequire
modifications and amendments tothe Construction Management Plan asdeemed necessary
throughout thecourse oftheproject anduntilthefinal inspection.
4
33.
informthem ofthe commencement ofconstruction. Thenotice shallmemailed ten daysprior
tocommencement.
34. Any exterior lighting shallbefully shielded and directed downwards astonotproject over
the property lines ofthesubject site.
35. The applicant shall submit aMaster SignProgram forthemixed-use development tothe
Planning Division forreview andapproval prior to finalization of building permits for the
project.
36. Thedeveloper shall make allefforts withinthefirstsixmonths ofthe leasing period to
incorporate national orregional tenants intothecommercial leasing spaces.
37. All open areasnotcovered byconcrete, asphalt, orstructures shall belandscaped and
maintained onaregular basis. Maintenance procedures ofsuch landscaped andcommon areas
shall bespecifically stated intheCC&Rspriortoissuance ofanybuilding permit.
38. Restrictions and/orcovenants shall berecorded onthe property toensure thebenefits or
amenities provided toearnthe Community Benefit Incentives aremaintained inperpetuity.
Theproject includes fivecommunity benefit incentives totaling 131 earned points fora3.0
floorarea ratio (FAR) anddensity of80units/acre. Thetypeofbenefit and points earned are
listedbelow:
a. Lot Consolidation 35points
b. Family Friendly Development 50points
c. Nonresidential Component ofMixed-UseDevelopment Sites 20points and
5% increase inresidential tomakethesplit70% residential to30% commercial
d. Public Parking 6points
e. Sustainable Design (CAL-Green Tier1) 20points
Public Works Conditions ofApproval
39. Copy allconditions ofapproval and the Planning decision letteronto allpermit plan sets.
40.
required bythePublic Works Inspector beforethefinalinspection.
41. Rehabilitate existing ACstreetpavement alongtheproperty frontage tothecenterline ofthe
street orpayanin-lieufee equal totheestimated costofstreetrehabilitation based ontheLos
Angeles County Land Development Division Bond Calculation Sheets before theissuance of
building permits tothe satisfaction oftheCityEngineer ordesignee. There isastreet-cut
moratorium onGarvey.
5
42. Anytrenching asphalt orconcrete pavement orstreet or sidewalk removal related tothe
project repair shall match the existing surfaces andasdirected bytheCityEngineer orhis
designee. New pavement thickness shall beoneinchgreater than theexisting. There isa
street-cut moratorium onGarvey.
43. Dedicate streetR/Wtomatch theultimate R/Wcondition, when applicable.
44. Therequired streetimprovements shall include those portions ofroadways contiguous tothe
subject property andinclude:
a. Reconstruct existing andconstruct newdriveway approaches withcurrent ADA
bypass requirements perSPPWC, latest edition. Noportion ofthedriveway and/or
parkway shall encroach tothefrontage oftheadjacent property. Remove and
replace relocated driveway approaches withsidewalk and curbandgutter.
b. Remove andreconstruct alldamaged and/oroff-grade curbs, gutters, ADAramps,
driveway approaches, andsidewalks.
c. Installstreet stormdraincatch basin trashgrates adjacent totheproperty (typeto
matchCity standard), when applicable.
45. Historical orexisting stormwater flowfromadjacent lotsmust bereceived anddirected by
gravity tothepublicstreet, to apublic drainage facility, oranapproved drainage easement.
46. Prepare and submit hydrology and hydraulic calculations forthe sizing ofallproposed
drainage devices. Theanalysis shall alsodetermine ifchanges in thepost-development versus
pre-development conditions have occurred. The analysis shall bestamped byaCalifornia
State Registered CivilEngineer andprepared per the LosAngeles County Department of
Public Works Hydrology Method.
47. Allgrading projects require anErosion Control Plan aspartofthegrading plans. Agrading
permit willnot beissued untilandErosion Control Plan isapproved bytheEngineering
Department.
48. Iftheproject isgreater thanoneacre, aStorm WaterPollution Planisrequired. ANotice of
Intent (NOI) shall befiled with theStateWater Resources Control Board. When submitting
Identification (WDID) number.
49. Adjust, relocate, and/oreliminate lotlines, lots, streets, easements orother physical
improvements tocomply withordinances, policies, andstandards ineffect onthedate the
Citydetermined theapplication to becomplete alltothesatisfaction ofthePublic Works
Department.
50. Submit aLIDplan andcomply withallNPDES requirements.
6
51.Ifapplicable, install Full Capture Devices (FCDs) oneachstorm drain catchbasin adjacent to
theproperty pursuant LosAngeles River Trash TMDL requirements and Citystandard.
52.Showclearly allexisting lotlines andproposed lotline ontheplans.
53.Provide acomplete boundary andtopographic survey.
54.Show any easement on theplans asapplicable.
55.ALotMergerorCovenant toHoldAll Parcels asoneshallberequired, dependent ontheCity
Traffic
56.Comply with alltraffic requirements.
57.Iftheproject generates 50ormorenew peak-hourvehicle trips, then atraffic impact study
will need tobecompleted.Atripgeneration tablewithdistribution ofproject trips ateach
driveway shouldbesubmitted toCityEngineering and Traffic todetermine theextent and
scope ofthe Traffic Analysis required.
58.Internal access, on-site parking, and lineofsightateach project driveway shall besubmitted
todetermine ifoff-siteparking restrictions arenecessary.
Sewer
59.Ifapplicable,approval ofthis landdivision iscontingent upon providing aseparate sewer
lateral toserve each lotoftheland division.
60.Conduct asewer capacity study per theLos Angeles County Department ofPublic Works
Guidelinesof existing sewerfacilities that serve theproposed development.The developer
shalleither pay in-lieufees equaltotheestimated cost (basedonLosAngeles County Land
ofthe design capacity oftheexisting sewer system prior totheissuance ofbuilding permits
orprovide sewer improvements todeficient sewer segments serving thesubject property to
thesatisfaction oftheCity Engineer.
61.Based ontheproject sewer analysis andthedesigncapacity conditions oftheexisting sewer
system inrelation totheproposed project, sewermain/trunk lineimprovements and/orin-lieu
feesshallberequired.
62.All existing laterals tobeabandoned shall becapped atthepublic rightofway to the
satisfaction oftheCityEngineer and theBuilding Official oftheCityofRosemead.
7
Utilities
63. Allpower, telephone, cabletelevision, andallutilities totheproject andadjacent totheproject
shallbeunderground.
64. Anyutilities thatconflict withthedevelopment shall berelocated atthedeveloper'sexpense.
65. Provide astreet lighting plan andparking lotlighting plan.
Water
66. Priortothefiling ofthefinal map, there shall alsobefiled with theCityEngineer, astatement
from thewater purveyor indicating compliance withtheFireChief'sfireflowrequirements.
67. Water hydrant, water meter boxandutilities boxshall belocated 8feetawayfromparkway
trees and3feetaway from driveway approach.
68. Priortotheapproval ofthetentative map, thereshallalso befiled withtheCity Engineer, a
statement from thewater purveyor andfire department indicating compliance with theFire
Chief'sfireflowrequirements.
Mitigation Measure Conditions
Aesthetics
69. Priortotheissuance ofabuilding permit the project applicant shallsubmit alighting plan
forapproval bythePlanning Division thatincorporates thefollowing light reducing measures
asapplicable:
a. Selectlighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/ordifferent lighting
distribution.
b. Relocate and/orchange theheight and/ororientation ofproposed lighting fixtures.
c. Add external shielding and/orinternal reflectors tofixtures.
d. Selectlower-output lamp/lamp technologies.
e. Acombination oftheabove.
AirQuality
70. Priortothe start and throughout project construction, thecontractor shallimplement and
maintain thefollowing fugitive dust control measures:
a. Apply soilstabilizers ormoisten inactive areas.
b. Water exposed surfaces asneeded toavoidvisible dustleaving theconstruction site
typically 2-3times/day).
8
c. Cover allstockpiles with tarpsattheend ofeachday orasneeded.
d. Provide water spray during loading andunloading ofearthen materials.
e. Minimize in-outtraffic from construction zone.
f. Cover alltrucks hauling dirt, sand, orloosematerial andrequire alltrucks to
maintain atleast two feetoffreeboard.
g. Sweep streets dailyifvisible soil material iscarried outfromtheconstruction site.
71. Throughout project construction the contractor shall:
a. Utilize well-tunedoff-road construction equipment.
b. Establish apreference forcontractors usingTier3orbetter heavy equipment.
c. Enforce 5-minute idling limits forboth on-road trucks andoff-roadequipment.
Cultural Resources
72. The project developer shall retainaqualified professional archaeologist whomeets U.S.
Archaeological Sensitivity Training forconstruction personnel priortocommencement of
excavation activities. Thetraining session shallbecarried outbyacultural resource
Professional Qualifications andStandards. Thetraining session shall include ahandout and
will focus onhowtoidentify archaeological resources thatmay beencountered during
earthmoving activities and the procedures tobefollowed insuchanevent, theduties of
archaeological monitors, andthe general steps aqualified professional archaeologist would
follow inconducting asalvage investigation ifoneisnecessary.
73. Intheeventthat archaeological resources areunearthed during ground disturbing activities,
ground-disturbing activities shallbehalted ordiverted away fromthevicinity ofthefind so
thatthefind canbe evaluated. Abuffer areaofatleast 50 feetshall beestablished around
thefindwhere construction activities shallnotbeallowed to continue until aqualified
archaeologist hasexamined thenewly discovered artifact(s) and hasevaluated theareaof
thefind. Work shall beallowed tocontinue outside ofthebuffer area. Allarchaeological
resources unearthed byproject construction activities shallbeevaluated byaqualified
professional archaeologist, who meets theU.S. Secretary of
Qualifications andStandards. Should the newly discovered artifacts bedetermined tobe
prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals shallbecontacted andconsulted, and
Native American construction monitoring shallbeinitiated. Theproject developer andthe
Cityshall coordinate withthearchaeologist todevelop anappropriate treatment planforthe
resources. Theplan may include implementation ofarchaeological data recovery
excavations toaddress treatment oftheresource along with subsequent laboratory
processing andanalysis.
74. The project developer shallretainaqualified professional archaeologist, whomeets theU.S.
Archaeolog
9
excavations have exposed orhave ahighprobability toexpose archaeological resources.
After theinitial Archaeological SpotCheck, further periodic checks shall beconducted at
thediscretion ofthequalified archaeologist. Ifthequalified archaeologist determines that
construction excavations have exposed orhave ahighprobability toexpose archaeological
artifacts construction monitoring for Archaeological Resources shallberequired. The
projectdeveloper shall retain aqualified archaeological monitor, who will work under the
guidance and direction ofaprofessional archaeologist, who meets thequalifications set
Qualifications andStandards. The
archaeological monitor shallbepresent during allconstruction excavations (e.g., grading,
trenching, orclearing/grubbing) intonon-fill younger Pleistocene alluvial sediments.
Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological
monitors. Thefrequency ofmonitoring shallbebased ontherateofexcavation andgrading
activities, proximity toknown archaeological resources, thematerials being excavated
native versus artificial fillsoils), andthedepth ofexcavation, andiffound, theabundance
andtypeofarchaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can bereduced to
part-timeinspections ifdetermined adequate bytheproject archaeologist.
75. Thearchaeological monitor, under the direction ofaqualified professional archaeologist
shall prepare afinal report atthe conclusion ofarchaeological monitoring. Thereport shall
besubmitted totheproject developer, theSouthCentral Costal Information Center, theCity,
andrepresentatives ofother appropriate orconcerned agencies tosignify thesatisfactory
completion ofthe project and required mitigation measures. The report shallinclude a
description ofresources unearthed, ifany, evaluation oftheresources with respect tothe
California Register andCEQA, and treatment oftheresources.
Noise
76. Allconstruction equipment shall beequipped with mufflers andother suitable noise
attenuation devices (e.g., engine shields).
77. Grading and construction contractors shalluserubber-tired equipment rather than track
equipment, tothemaximum extent feasible.
78. Iffeasible, electric hook-upsshall beprovided toavoid the use ofgenerators. Ifelectric
service isdetermined tobeinfeasible forthesite, onlywhisper-quiet generators shallbe
used (i.e., inverter generators capable ofproviding variable load.
79. Electric aircompressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment shall beused,
where feasible.
80. Generators andstationary construction equipment shall be staged andlocated asfarfrom
theadjacent residential structures asfeasible.
10
81.Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and
portable equipment, shall beturned offwhen notinuse formore than 5minutes.
82.Asignshallbeposted inareadily visible location attheproject site thatindicates thedates
and duration ofconstruction activities, aswell asprovide atelephone number where
residents canenquire about the construction process and register complaints toanassigned
construction noise disturbance coordinator.
83.Dozers shall notoperate within 25 feetofthenorthproperty line.
Tribal Cultural Resources
84.Priortothe commencement ofany ground disturbing activity attheproject site, theproject
applicant shall retain aNative American Monitor approved bytheGabrieleño Band of
Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. Acopy ofthe executed contract shall besubmittedto theCity
ofRosemead Planning andBuilding Department priortotheissuance ofany permit
necessary tocommence aground-disturbing activity. TheTribal monitor shallonly be
present on-siteduring the construction phases thatinvolve ground-disturbingactivities.
Ground disturbing activities aredefined bytheTribe asactivities thatmay include, butare
notlimited to, pavement removal, potholing orauguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring,
grading, excavation, drilling, andtrenching, within theproject area. The Tribal Monitor
including construction activities, locations, soil, and anycultural materials identified. The
on-sitemonitoring shallendwhen allground-disturbing activities ontheproject site are
completed, orwhen theTribal Representatives andTribal Monitor have indicated that all
upcoming ground-disturbing activities atthe project sitehave littletonopotential toimpact
Tribal Cultural Resources.
85.Upondiscovery ofanyTribal Cultural Resources, construction activities shall ceasein the
immediate vicinity ofthefind (notlessthan thesurrounding 100feet) until thefindcanbe
assessed. AllTribal Cultural Resources unearthed byproject activities shallbeevaluated by
thequalified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved bytheConsulting Tribe. Ifthe
resources areNative American inorigin, theConsulting Tribe shall retain it/theminthe
form and/ormanner theTribe deems appropriate, foreducational, cultural and/orhistoric
purposes. Ifhuman remains and/orgrave goods arediscovered orrecognized atthe project
site, allground disturbance shall immediately cease, andthe county coroner shallbenotified
perPublic Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5.
Human remains andgrave/burial goods shall betreated alike perCalifornia Public
Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue onother parts ofthe
project site while evaluation and, ifnecessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5\[f\]). Ifanon-NativeAmerican resource isdetermined bythequalified
allotment and funding sufficient toallow forimplementation ofavoidance measures, or
appropriate mitigation, must beavailable. The treatment planestablished fortheresources
shallbeinaccordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) forhistorical resources
11
and PRCSections 21083.2(b) forunique archaeological resources. Preservation inplace
i.e., avoidance) isthepreferred manner oftreatment. Ifpreservation inplaceisnotfeasible,
treatment mayinclude implementation ofarchaeological data recovery excavations to
remove theresource along withsubsequent laboratory processing andanalysis. Anyhistoric
archaeological material thatisnotNative American inorigin shallbecurated atapublic,
non-profitinstitution with aresearch interest inthe materials, such asthe Natural History
Museum ofLos Angeles County ortheFowler Museum, ifsuchaninstitution agrees to
accept thematerial. Ifnoinstitution accepts thearchaeological material, itshallbeoffered
toalocalschool orhistorical society intheareaforeducational purposes.
12
Attachment B
City Council Resolution No. 2022-18
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-18
ARESOLUTION OFTHE CITY COUNCIL OFTHE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OFLOS ANGELES, STATE OFCALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING ANDREPORTING PROGRAM FOR
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 21-01 AND ZONE CHANGE 21-01. THE
SUBJECT SITEISLOCATED AT7539 & 7545GARVEY AVENUE (APN
NOS. 5286-022-009AND 5286-022-010)
WHEREAS, onJune 2, 2021, DelMarProperty LLC submitted entitlement applications
for theconstruction ofaseven-story, mixed-usedevelopment with 6,346 square feetof
nonresidential (commercial) use and75residential units; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was undertaken forthepurpose ofdeciding whether the
project may have asignificant effect ontheenvironment. On the basisoftheanalysis within
theInitialStudy, theCityhasconcluded thattheproject willnothave asignificant effect on
theenvironment with theincorporation ofmitigation measures andhas therefore prepared an
Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, theDraftMitigated Negative Declaration andMitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program wereprepared andcirculated fora20-daypublic review andcomment period
from February 16, 2022toMarch 7, 2022 andwassubmitted totheState Clearinghouse (SCH
Number 2022020365); and
WHEREAS, asrequired undertheCEQA andinorder tofacilitate implementation ofall
mitigation measures adopted pursuant toCEQA, theMitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program identifies thetiming of, and theagency oragencies responsible for, enforcement and
monitoring ofeach mitigation measure tobeimplemented toreduce potentially significant impacts
toalessthan significant level; and
WHEREAS, onMarch 7, 2022, thePlanning Commission heldadulynoticed and
advertised public hearing toreceive oral and written testimony relative andmade afinding of
adequacy with theMitigated Negative Declaration andMitigation Monitoring Program and
recommended that theCity Council adopt theMitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program astheenvironmental clearance forSpecific PlanAmendment 21-01andZone
Change 21-01; and
WHEREAS, onMarch 10, 2022, forty-three (43) notices weresent toproperty owners
within a300-feetradius from thesubject property, inaddition tonotices posted insix (6) public
locations, on-site, published intheRosemead Reader, andfiledwith theLos Angeles County
Clerk, specifying the availability oftheapplication, plusthedate, time, andlocation ofthepublic
hearing toconsider theMitigated Negative Declaration andMitigation Monitoring Program asthe
environmental clearance for Specific PlanAmendment 21-01andZone Change 21-01; and
1
WHEREAS, onMarch 22, 2022, theCityCouncil continued thepublic hearing onSpecific
PlanAmendment 21-01andZoneChange 21-01, tothenextregularly scheduled CityCouncil
Meeting onApril 12, 2022, inorder toaddress public comments that werereceived atthenight of
themeeting;
WHEREAS, theCityCouncil heldadulynoticed public hearing onApril 12, 2022, to
consider theMitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; and
WHEREAS, theCity Council fully studied theMitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program andconsidered allpublic comments; and
WHEREAS, theCityCouncil, having finalapproval authority over this project, has
reviewed and considered allcomments received during the public review period prior to the
approval ofthisproject.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THECITY OF ROSEMEAD
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE ASFOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. TheCityCouncil exercises itsindependent judgment andfinds, onthebasis
ofthewhole record before it (including theinitial study andany comments received), thatthereis
nosubstantial evidence thatthe project will haveasignificant effecton theenvironment after the
adoption ofthemitigated negative declaration, andHEREBY ADOPTS theMitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, astheenvironmental clearance
for Specific PlanAmendment 21-01andZone Change 21-01 andto filetheNotice of
Determination fortheproject.
SECTION 2. TheDirector ofCommunity Development orhis/herdesignee isdirected to
filetheNotice ofDetermination fortheproject.
SECTION 3. The CityClerk shall certify totheadoption ofthisresolution and hereafter
thesameshall be infullforce andeffect.
thPASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this12 dayofApril, 2022.
Polly Low, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED ASTOFORM:
Rachel H. Richman, CityAttorney Ericka Hernandez, CityClerk
2
Exhibits:
A. Mitigated Negative Declaration andMitigation Monitoring andReporting Program
B. Conditions ofApproval
3
STATE OFCALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OFLOSANGELES ) §
CITY OF ROSEMEAD )
I, ErickaHernandez, CityClerkoftheCityCouncil oftheCityofRosemead, California, dohereby
certify thattheforegoing CityCouncil Resolution No. 2022-18 was duly adopted bytheCity
Council oftheCity ofRosemead, California, ataregular meeting thereof heldonthe _____ day
ofApril, 2022, bythefollowing vote, towit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Ericka Hernandez, CityClerk
4
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE PROJECT
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 21-01, ZONE CHANGE 21-01
Lead Agency:
City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
(626) 569-2140
Project Proponent:
Del Mar Property, LLC
120 E. Valley Boulevard
San Gabriel, CA 91776
(626) 307-0062
Environmental Consultant:
Phil Martin & Associates
1809 E. Dyer Road, Suite 301
Santa Ana, California 92705
(949) 454-1800
February 16, 2022
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page i
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
TABLE of CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1 Project Title ............................................................................................................... 1
2. Lead Agency Name and Address .............................................................................. 1
3. Contact Person and Phone Number .......................................................................... 1
4. Project Location ........................................................................................................ 1
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ....................................................................... 1
6. General Plan Designation ......................................................................................... 1
7 Zoning ....................................................................................................................... 1
8. Description of Project ................................................................................................ 1
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ........................................................................ 12
10. Other Public Agencies whose Approval Is Required ................................................ 12
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated
With the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21080.3.1? ........................................................................................ 12
12. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................. 16
13. Determination .......................................................................................................... 16
14. Issues ..................................................................................................................... 18
15. Explanation of Issues .............................................................................................. 26
I. Aesthetics ....................................................................................................... 26
II. Agricultural Resources .................................................................................... 41
III. Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 42
IV. Biological Resources ...................................................................................... 52
V. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 53
VI. Energy ............................................................................................................ 56
VII. Geology and Soils .......................................................................................... 58
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................... 60
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................. 62
X. Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................... 64
XI. Land Use ........................................................................................................ 69
XII. Mineral Resources .......................................................................................... 73
XIII. Noise .............................................................................................................. 74
XIV. Population and Housing .................................................................................. 84
XV. Public Services ............................................................................................... 85
XVI. Recreation ...................................................................................................... 86
XVII. Transportation ................................................................................................ 86
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 93
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................... 95
XX. Wildfire ........................................................................................................... 96
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................ 97
Appendices
Appendix A - Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Report
Appendix B - Geotechnical Report
Appendix C - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix D – Hydrology Report and Low Impact Calculations
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page ii
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Appendix E – Noise Report
Appendix F - Traffic Report
LIST of FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Regional Map ............................................................................................................ 2
2. Local Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................... 3
3. Aerial Photo .............................................................................................................. 4
4. USGS Topo Map ....................................................................................................... 5
5. Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Zoning Map ................................................................ 6
6. Ground Floor Landscape Plan ................................................................................... 8
7. Second – Fourth Courtyard Landscape Plans ........................................................... 9
8. Fifth - Seventh Floors Landscape Plans .................................................................. 10
9. Site Plan .................................................................................................................. 11
10. On-Site Land Use .................................................................................................... 13
11. Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................... 14
12. Photo Orientation Map ............................................................................................ 15
13. Project Rendering ................................................................................................... 28
14. North Building Elevation Rendering ......................................................................... 38
15. South and East Exterior Light Fixtures .................................................................... 39
16. North and West Exterior Light Fixtures .................................................................... 40
17. Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................ 76
18. Cumulative Project Location Map ............................................................................ 99
LIST of TABLES
Table Page
1. Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Development Standards – Project Compliance ......... 30
2. Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................................ 45
3. Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants ............................................................... 47
4. Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2017-2020) .......................................................... 48
5. SCAQMD Daily Emission Thresholds of Significance .............................................. 49
6. Construction Activity Equipment Fleet – Proposed Project ...................................... 49
7. Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) ............... 50
8. LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day) ................................................................ 52
9. Daily Operational Emissions (2023) ........................................................................ 52
10. Construction GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e) ................................................... 62
11. Annual Operations GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e) ......................................... 62
12. Project Community Benefit Points ........................................................................... 70
13. Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits ......................................................................... 75
14. Short-Term Measured Noise Levels (dBA) .............................................................. 76
15. Construction Equipment Noise Levels ..................................................................... 78
16. Construction Noise Exposure at Adjoining Sensitive Uses (dBA LEQ) .................... 78
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page iii
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
17. Traffic and Associated Noise Levels for Existing and Future Time Frame ............... 80
18. Traffic Noise Impact Comparison ............................................................................ 81
19. Human Response to Transient Vibration ................................................................. 82
20. FTA and Caltrans Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ........... 83
21. Estimated Vibration Levels During Project Construction .......................................... 83
22. Existing TAZ 2165-1 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Trip Generation ........................ 87
23. TAZ 2165-1 Parcel Matrix ....................................................................................... 88
24. Existing TAZ 2165-1 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Trip Generation – Project APNs88
25. Project Trip Generation ........................................................................................... 89
26. Project Trip Generation Comparison to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan TIA/EIR ....... 90
27. Estimated Project Water Consumption .................................................................... 95
28. Cumulative Projects ................................................................................................ 98
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 1
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Project Title: Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
(626) 569-2140
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Lily Valenzuela, Planning & Economic Development Manager
(626) 569-2142
4. Project Location: The project is located in the City of Rosemead as shown in Figure 1, Regional Map.
More specifically, the project is located at 7539 and 7545 Garvey Avenue (APN Nos.
5286-022-009 and 5286-022-010) as shown in Figure 2, Vicinity Map. An aerial
photograph of the site and surrounding area is shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photo.
Figure 4, Topography Map, that shows the topography on the site and surrounding
areas.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Del Mar Property LLC
120 E. Valley Boulevard
San Gabriel, CA 91776
(626) 307-0062
6. General Plan Designation: The project site is designated Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) by the
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. The project is requesting a specific plan amendment to Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-Use (GSP-MU).
7. Zoning: The project site is zoned Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) as shown in Figure 5. The project
is requesting a zone change to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-Use (GSP-MU).
8. Description of Project: The project site totals approximately 0.946 gross acres (41,235 square feet) and
includes two parcels (APN Nos. 5286-022-009 and 5286-022-010). The site is currently vacant.
The project proposes a seven-story, mixed-use development that totals 97,775 square feet. The project
proposes 6,346 square feet of nonresidential use on the first floor and 75 residential units on the first
through seventh floors. Of the 75 residential units, 30 are live-work units, including 4 live-work units on
the ground level, 5 live-work units on the second floor, 7 live-work units on the third floor and 14 live-work
units on the fourth floor. The project proposes 45 apartments on the fifth through seventh floors with 16
apartments on the fifth floor, 15 apartments on the sixth floor and 14 apartments on the seventh floor.
The project includes 17 two-bedroom live-work units, 34 two-bedroom apartments, 4 two-bedroom loft
live-work units, 9 three-bedroom live-work units, 10 three-bedroom apartments and 1 four-bedroom
apartment.
The project proposes a total of 110,496 square feet of residential, commercial and access and hallway
space on the 41,235 square foot site that results in a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.7 compared to a maximum
allowed FAR of 3.0 with the allowed provisions of community benefits by the Garvey Avenue
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Figure 12Trip Distribution
N
Source: Stantec
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Source: Phil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Figure 1Regional Map
N
*
Site Location
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Figure 12Trip Distribution
N
Source: Stantec
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Source: Google Maps, 2017
Figure 2
Local Vicinity Map
Project Site
N
Project
Site
Figure 2
Local Vicinity Map
Source: Google Maps
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Figure 3
Aerial Photo
Project
Site
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Figure 12Trip Distribution
N
Source: Stantec
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Figure 4
USGS Topo Map
Project
Site
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN, FEBRUARY 2018 3 - 3
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Figure 3.1 Zoning
Figure 5
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Zoning Map
Project Site
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 7
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Specific Plan. The building footprints covers 32,672 square feet of the project site, or approximately 79.2
percent of the site.
The project proposes 12,547 square feet of landscaping, or 30 percent of the site. The project
landscaping includes drought tolerant shrubs and ground cover, accent street trees, accent benches, and
decorative planter pots in a 5-foot wide parkway amenity zone along both Prospect Avenue and Garvey
Avenue that are adjacent to the site. The sidewalks between the proposed mixed-use building and the
parkway amenity zone includes exposed aggregate banding, light colored concrete with medium wash
finish and accent pavers. Landscaping is proposed for the courtyards of the fourth through seventh floors
of the building and includes 24”x36” high planter walls. In addition to landscaping, all of the courtyards
include outdoor dining tables and chairs and depending on the floor, the courtyards include outdoor
lounge sofas and chairs, a natural gas fire pit, view bar/counter with stools along with other amenities.
The ground floor landscape plan is shown in Figure 6, the second through fourth courtyard landscape
plans are shown in Figure 7 and the fifth through the seventh courtyard landscape plans are shown in
Figure 8.
The project proposes 147 parking spaces, including 110 standard spaces, 32 compact spaces, 4
handicap accessible spaces and 1 loading space. Of the 147 parking spaces, 42 parking spaces are
proposed for the ground floor, 57 parking spaces are proposed for the second level and 48 parking
spaces are proposed for the third level. The project proposes 3 more parking spaces for public parking
than required by the Rosemead Municipal Code and consistent with the requirements of the community
benefit program. The project also proposes 14 bicycles spaces.
The height to the building to the top of the roof is 75’. The total height of the building, including the top
of the parapet, is 80’-0”.
There is one point of vehicular access to the site. A driveway that extends along the north project
boundary would provide vehicular access from Prospect Avenue. The Prospect Avenue entry provides
an entrance to the ground level parking area and access to ramps that provide vehicular access to parking
on the second and third floor parking areas. The vehicular access driveway at Prospect Avenue is 26-
foot wide and open with no height restriction. However, there is a 12-foot height restriction for access
from the north site driveway into the ground floor parking. All delivery vehicles for the nonresidential
space on the ground level would enter the site from Prospect Avenue and park in a designated loading
area on the ground level for site deliveries. Delivery trucks would be restricted to two axle trucks. Delivery
trucks would not be allowed to park along either Prospect Avenue or Garvey Avenue. The proposed site
plan is shown in Figure 9.
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Amendment
The project also includes an amendment to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan permitting sit-down
restaurants with a minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an Administrative Use Permit for
beer/wine sales in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) and Garvey Avenue Specific Plan,
Incentivized Mixed -Use (GSP-MU) zones. This proposed Amendment would continue to require a
Conditional Use Permit for all other on-site alcohol sales for sit-down restaurants less than 6,000 square
feet.
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the development of a sit-
down restaurant in both the GSP and GSP-MU zones. The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan states that for
eating and drinking establishments with “On-Sale” ABC license, “A regional or national chain restaurant
larger than 6,000 square feet to serve alcohol without a CUP in the GSP-MU zone, provided that a valid
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Figure 6
Ground Floor Landscape Plan
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Figure 7
Second-Fourth Floors Landscape Plan
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Figure 8
Fifth-Seventh Floors Landscape Plan
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Figure 12Trip Distribution
N
Source: Stantec
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
5' WIDE PARKWAY (AMENITY ZONE)7' WIDE DETACHED SIDEWALK (CLEAR ZONE)7' WIDE DETACHED SIDEWALK (CLEAR ZONE)
5' WIDE PARKWAY (AMENITY ZONE)
LAUNDRY
LAUNDRY
LAUNDRY
LAUNDRY
ELEV LOBBY LOADINGAREAELECTRICALROOMRAMP UP TO 2ND FLR42 PARKING SPACES
RETAIL±6,346 SF OPENSPACE
PLAZAOPEN SPACELIVE WORK197'-7"210'-0"6'-2"5'-11"25'-0"40'-10"3'-0"9'-0"TYP.1'-0"3'-0"33'-1"30'-10"25'-6"
UTILITY/STORAGE
COMMERCIALTRASH
RESIDENTIALTRASH
16% RAMPTRANS-FORMEROPENTO SKYABOVE
15'-7"
COMMERCIALBICYCLEPARKING
UP
UP
UP
4'-4"
25'-0"
COMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL
COMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL2'-0"2'-0"CORRIDORA1A3
A2
24'-2"25'-0"CANOPYABOVE (TYP)2'-0"5'-0"
(E) FIREHYDRANT
ADA CURB RAMP
±47'-6"
7'-0"
52'-10"95'-7"
123'-3"30'-10"5'-0"7'-0"CANOPYABOVE(TYP)
(N) DRIVEWAY
(N) CMU WALL W/VINES PLANTED6 FEET APART
(N) CMU WALL
CCCCRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTPUBLICPARKINGRESIDENTGUESTPUBLICPARKINGPUBLICPARKINGRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTIALBIKE STORAGE
OPENSPACEA4
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
5'-0"COMMERCIALCOMMERCIALRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTSECUREDENTRANCE/EXITROLL UP GATE
SECUREDENTRANCE/EXITROLL UP GATE
RESIDENTGUEST RESIDENTGUEST RESIDENTGUEST RESIDENTGUESTCAB D E F
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
G I
82'-0"22'-0"5'-0"
1
A400
2
A400
2'-0"
2'-0"2'-0"2'-0"SECUREDENTRANCE/EXITROLL UP GATEPATIO 110 SFPATIO 110 SFPATIO 110 SFPA TIO 110 SFBIO FILTRATIONPLANTER, PER CIVIL
(N) TREE
(N) TREE
UTILITYROOM 9'-0"TYP.18'-0"
TYP.
METAL GATESCREENINGCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALMAILCCCLIVE/WORKGUESTCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL AMMENITIES
RETAIL
2 BEDROOM
3 BEDROOM
COURTYARD/OPEN AREA
LIVE-WORK UNITS
PLAN LEGEND
SECURED PARKINGAREA
4 BEDROOM
EXTERIOR LIGHT(WALL SCONCE)
2'-0" CLEAR
8'-0"
1'-0"
8'-0"9'-0"9'-0"18'-0"2'-0" CLEAR
PARKING STALLS SHALL BE STRIPED WITHTHREE-INCH DOUBLE LINES, SIX INCHESAPART. THE STALL WIDTH SHALL BEMEASURED FROM THE CENTER POINT OFEACH DOUBLE STRIPED MARKING.
WALL OROBSTRUCTION 16'-0"16'-0"18'-0"3"6"3"3"6"3"3"3"STALL WIDTHSTALL LENGHTCOMPACT PARKING STANDARD PARKING
1'-0"WALL OROBSTRUCTION 970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107LOS ANGELES, CA 90012p. 213.537.0910info@scaleslab.comwww.scaleslab.comPROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USEDATE:SHEET:DESCRIPTION:DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.7539 GARVEY AVE.ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIASITE/1ST FLOOR PLANA-101NORTH
SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"
PARKING BREAKDOWN:
PARKING STANDARD DIAGRAM:21-11-10Figure 9
Site Plan
Source: scale(s) lab architect
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 12
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) is obtained.”1 Rosemead
Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.04.050 (Definitions - General) defines a "Restaurant, Sit-down" as “an
establishment engaged in the business of selling food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages,
prepared on site for primarily on-site consumption. Food and beverages are served to the customer at a
fixed location (i.e., booth, counter, or table). Food and beverages are ordered from a menu. Customers
typically pay for food and beverages after service and/or consumption. The sale or service of sandwiches,
whether prepared in the kitchen or made elsewhere and heated on the premises, or snack foods, shall
not constitute a sit-down restaurant.”
The City recently adopted the Freeway Corridor Mixed-Use Overlay (FCMU)2 that encompasses six
geographic areas within Rosemead. The areas total approximately 60 acres (186 parcels) and were
selected based on proximity to the Interstate 10 (I-10) Freeway, location along primary City corridors,
and adjacency to public transit lines. FCMU Overlay areas are located along Del Mar Avenue, San
Gabriel Boulevard, Walnut Grove Avenue, Valley Boulevard, Temple City Boulevard, and Rosemead
Boulevard. The FCMU Overlay identifies special provisions for land use, development standards, urban
design, community benefits, and by -right uses, in addition to those in the existing underlying base zone,
to support appropriate mixed-use and residential development. The FCMU Overlay also identifies public
and private realm improvements that will further enhance the aesthetic and character of these areas.
Similar to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, the FCMU Overlay requires a CUP for the development of
an eating and drinking establishment with an “On-Sale” ABC license in both the FCMU-Corridor (FCMU-
C) and FCMU-Block (FCMU-B) overlay zones. As shown in Table 2-1 Permitted Uses of the FCMU, “a
sit-down restaurant larger than 1,000 square feet is permitted to serve beer/wine with an AUP
(Administrative Use Permit), provided that a valid license from ABC is obtained. See RMC 17.30.040 for
additional information related to alcohol beverage sales and RMC 17.04.050 for definition of a sit-down
restaurant.” To be consistent with the FCMU and assist the development community in Rosemead with
relief for businesses that are facing economic hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic, including the
Prospect Villa project applicant, the City proposes the Amendment to allow a sit-down restaurant with
beer/wine sales larger than 1,000 square feet, in the GSP and GSP-MU zones with an AUP. A sit-down
restaurant would also have to meet the requirements of RMC 17.30.040 for alcohol beverage sales and
RMC 17.04.050 for the definition of a sit-down restaurant.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The land uses surrounding the project site include Prospect
Avenue adjacent to and west of site and west of Prospect Avenue is a McDonald’s restaurant, to the
north are single-family and multi-family residential units, to the east is a restaurant and multi-family
residential dwelling units and south of the site is Garvey Avenue and south of Garvey Avenue are
commercial uses. Figure 10 shows photographs of the on-site land uses and Figure 11 shows
photographs of the surrounding land uses. Figure 12 is a photo orientation map of the on-site and
surrounding land uses.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: The discretionary approvals required from the
City of Rosemead include the following project approvals: Specific Plan Amendment (21-01) and Specific
Plan Zone Change (21-02). No other public agency approvals are required.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a
plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to
tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Tribal letters were mailed by
the City of Rosemead on September 21, 2021 to eight tribes and formally invited consultation with the
1 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Figure 3.3 Land Use Table, Eating and Drinking Establishments: With “On Sale” ABC License, page 3-
11.
2 City of Rosemead Resolution No. 2021-40, September 7, 2021.
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Figure 10
On-Site Land Use
A. Looking north at project site from Garvey Avenue B. Looking east at project site from Prospect Avenue
C. Looking at project site from intersection of Garvey and Prospect Avenues
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Figure 11
Surrounding Land Uses
D. Residential Units North of Project Site E. McDonald’s Restaurant West of Project Site
F. Commercial Uses South of Project Site G. Commercial Uses East of Project Site
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Figure 12
Photo Orientation Map
Project
Site
C
D
F
B
A
E
G
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 16
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
City in compliance with 21080.3.1. To date the City has received a request from the Gabrielino Band of
Mission Indians – Kizh Nation for consultation. The tribes that were contacted include:
1. Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation – Andrew Salas
2. Gabrieleno/Tongva Nation – Charles Alvares
3. Gabrieleno/Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council – Robert Dorame
4. Gabrielino-Tongva Nation – Sandonne Goad
5. Gabrielino-Tongva Nation – Sam Dunlap
6. Gabrielino-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians – Anthony Morales
7. Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians – Joseph Ontiveros
8. Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians – Michael Mirelez
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level
of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict
in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2) Information may also be available from the California
Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources
Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3
(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
12. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
13. 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 impact on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 17
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless
mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on an earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature: Date
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
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 question. A “No Impact”
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No
Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,
or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less-than-significant Impact”. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier
Analyses,” as described in (5) below may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 18
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental
effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
14. ISSUES:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of
the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that
will adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
II. AGRICULTURE and FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest
land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and
forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 19
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which due to their location or nature, could
individually or cumulatively result in the loss of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutants for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 20
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource as
defined in §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.)
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 21
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan,
or where such a plan has not been adopted,
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 22
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
within two miles of a public airport, will the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people working or residing in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces in a manner, which
would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site;
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on-or off-site;
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an
environmental effect?
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 23
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport, will the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned 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 people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XVI. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 24
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place,
or object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1 (k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 25
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state and local management
and reduction statues and regulations related to
solid waste?
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result or runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially
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, substantially 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?
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 26
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
15. EXPLANATION OF ISSUES:
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The project site and the surrounding
properties in the City of Rosemead are not designated as a scenic vista by the City of Rosemead General
Plan.
The most predominant scenic vista open to the Rosemead community is the San Gabriel Valley mountain
range approximately 8 miles north of the city. There are no existing residences adjacent to the project
that look across the project site to view the San Gabriel mountains. Therefore, the project would not
block or interrupted any existing views of the San Gabriel mountains by any area residents. The closest
residents that look across the site to the San Gabriel mountains to the north are the residents along both
sides of Prospect Avenue south of Garvey Avenue and more than 250 feet south of the project site.
While direct views of the San Gabriel mountains by the residents south of the site would be partially
interrupted by the proposed mixed-use building, their views would not be completely blocked. The
resident’s south of Garvey Avenue would continue to have some distant views of the San Gabriel
mountains to the north. There are no other scenic vistas or views that would be impacted by the project.
The Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report did not identify any scenic
resource impacts with the development of the Specific Plan.3 Therefore, the project would not have a
significant scenic vista impact.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. There are no Officially Designated or
Eligible State Scenic Highways4 and no scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic
buildings within a state scenic highway either adjacent to or in direct view from the site that would be
removed or altered by the project. The closest State Scenic Highway to the project is Route 2 near La
Canada Flintridge and approximately 16 miles north of the project. The project would not impact a state
scenic resource.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact.
The project is located within an urbanized area.5 The project site is vacant and there are no existing
buildings or other site improvements on the project site that would have to be demolished to allow
construction of the project. The architecture of the proposed building is Modern style. New landscaping
would be installed within the five-foot street set-backs along both the north side of Garvey Avenue and
3 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume 1, May 2017, page 1-3.
4 State of California Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenichighways/
5 CEQA Guidelines §15387.
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 27
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
the east side of Prospect Avenue. Vines and other exterior building landscaping materials are proposed
for the exterior walls along the north side of the building.
The architectural design and character of the proposed mixed-use building includes building elevations
that are detailed and articulated with projections and recesses to avoid long and plain surfaces. Building
massing would be further minimized through the use of differentiated building materials, and colors and
the incorporation of architectural features such as extended balconies with glass panels. A rendering of
the proposed mixed-use building is shown in Figure 13. The design and Modern architecture of the
proposed mixed-use building along with landscaped private open space would improve the aesthetics of
the site for the existing residents north and east of the site as well as the commercial businesses adjacent
to the site. The project would also improve the street views of the vacant site for motorists and
pedestrians on both Prospect Avenue and Garvey Avenue by replacing the flat vacant site with a new
Modern architectural mixed-use building and landscaping. Figure 13 is a rendering of the project from
the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Prospect Avenue.
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan design and development guidelines and standards provide specific
policies for how parcels and buildings shall be developed, such as setbacks and parking requirements,
or height and density limits. They are intended to supplement the development standards in Rosemead’s
General Plan, as well as the design guidelines outlined in the Garvey Avenue Master Plan and in
Rosemead’s Mixed-Use Design Guidelines. These documents specifically addressed many design
guidelines important to this Specific Plan, including but not limited to those that relate to the public realm
and pedestrian environment, building and storefront design, parking, and utilities. The design standards
and guidelines of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan are largely consistent with those in the Garvey Avenue
Master Plan and Rosemead’s Mixed-Use Guidelines, and, likewise, largely share the same goals as
those in the Garvey Avenue Master Plan and Rosemead’s Mixed-Use Guidelines.
These goals include:
Upgrading the image and appeal of Garvey Avenue as a safe, attractive, and high-quality commercial
environment;
a. Encouraging high quality infill and mixed-use redevelopment of vacant lots and underutilized
properties to their highest and best use, whether commercial, residential, office, entertainment,
or open space;
b. Activating the street and enhancing the pedestrian environment and scale;
c. Ensuring compatibility between adjacent uses, especially single-family residential and other
mixed-use projects;
d. Inviting and supporting transit and active transportation;
e. Crafting parking requirements that balance parking needs with updated standards that give
flexibility to developers, manage parking as efficiently as possible, and minimize the negative
impacts of parking on the neighborhood; and
f) Integrating high-quality landscape and streetscape design that is consistent throughout the
corridor.6
As stated in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, design standards and guidelines should be used by
landowners, developers, tenants, and their consultants, such as architects, who propose any alteration,
addition, constructions and/or development projects within the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan area. City
staff should use the Plan to review projects for: 1) compliance with the design standards, and 2)
6 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, February 2018, page 3-16.
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA
PROJECTPROSPECT VILLA7539 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
OWNERDEL MAR PROPERTY LLC
120 E. VALLEY BLVD.SAN GABRIEL, CA 91776
Figure 13
Building Rendering
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 29
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
compliance with the intent of the design guidelines. Individuals and entities proposing projects within the
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan area should review and understand these standards and guidelines before
initiating the design and development process. To facilitate project approvals, questions regarding the
design standards and guidelines, as well as other development-related questions, should be discussed
with the Community Development Director or designee as early in the development process as possible.
Individuals and entities proposing projects should use these design standards and guidelines at each
project stage to shape concepts and designs to realize compatible architecture and urban design that
meets City of Rosemead requirements and expectations. City staff and others use these standards and
guidelines to understand proposed projects in relationship to approved objectives, goals, standards, and
guidelines.7
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Development Standards are provided in Table 3.4 of the Specific Plan.
The proposed project meets and complies with all of the applicable development standards required for
the development of a project in compliance with the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-
Use (GSP-MU) specific plan and zoning designation requested by the project applicant. Table 1 below
shows the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan development standards and project compliance with the
applicable development standards. As noted in Table 1, based on the site plan, building elevations and
landscape plan, the project meets the intent of all applicable design goals of the Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan. The project would not have any significant aesthetic impacts.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is
currently vacant and does not generate any light or glare. The proposed project would introduce new
sources of light and glare on the site compared to the existing condition. The project site is surrounded
by existing commercial and residential development. Therefore, light and glare from the existing
development adjacent to and surrounding the site and headlights of motor vehicle traffic on Garvey
Avenue and Prospect Avenue adjacent to the site currently exists in the project vicinity and light and glare
from those land uses and motor vehicles currently extend onto the project site.
Light
The project would generate new sources of light compared to the existing vacant site condition. The
sources of light generated by the project include City required streetlights, interior and exterior lighting of
the seven-story mixed-use building, landscape lighting, lighting in the parking areas within the building
and headlights of the cars that enter and leave the site at night. All private lighting associated with the
project would be required to meet and comply with all applicable lighting provisions in Rosemead
Municipal Code Chapter 17.88.
Due to the 75’ height of the building the light generated by the seven-story mixed-use building would be
visible from areas surrounding the project compared to the existing vacant site condition. The light
generated by the mixed-use building would be especially visible and noticeable to the existing residents
adjacent to and north and northwest of the site. While the existing residents south and northeast of the
site would see increased light from the site during the evening and nighttime hours compared to the
existing condition, they are a minimum of 230 feet from the site. Therefore, the project lighting would not
be as noticeable as the residents adjacent to and north and northwest of the site as the residents north
and northwest of the site.
While the light generated by the project compared to the existing condition would be visible to the
residents adjacent to and north and northwest of the site, due to existing lighting in the immediate project
area from existing commercial and residential uses, the lighting on the site is not anticipated to
7 Ibid, page 3-19.
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 30
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Table 1
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Development Standards – Project Compliance
Specific Plan Standards GSP-MU Comments (1)
DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
Minimum Lot Size
See RMC Section 17.08.050 regarding lot area and dimension requirements for direction on an undeveloped, substandard, or
nonconforming lot.
Mixed-Use 10,000 s.f.
Other 5,000 s.f. Comply
Minimum Lot Width 100’ Comply
Maximum Density Without
the Provision of
Community Benefits
25 dwelling units/gross acre See Community
Benefits Calculation
Maximum Density With the
Provision of Community
Benefits
80 dwelling units/gross acre Proposed 70DU/Acre
Allowed 74DU/Acre
Minimum Unit Size
Studio 600 s.f. Comply
One-Bedroom 600 s.f. Comply
Two-Bedroom 800 s.f. Comply
Each Additional Bedroom An additional 200 s.f./ bedroom Comply
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Without the Provision of
Community Benefits
Commercial: 0.75 maximum
Mixed-Use: 1.6 maximum N/A
FAR With the Provision of
Community Benefits Commercial: 1.0 maximum
Mixed-Use: 3.0 maximum
See Community
Benefits Calculation
Required Floor Area of the
Ground Floor Space in a
Vertical Mixed-Use
Building located along
Garvey Avenue
Lots with 50’ or less of street frontage: 800
s.f., minimum
Lots with 51’ or more of street frontage:
20% of the lot area, minimum.
A minimum of 20% of the building footprint
shall be dedicated to ground floor space.
Comply
REQUIRED MIXED-USE LAND USE SPLIT
Floor-Area Land Use Mix
65% Residential Use and 35%
Nonresidential Use (Mixed-Use
Development Only)
Request Modification
Or Amendment
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 31
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Specific Plan Standards GSP-MU Comments (2)
BUILDING HEIGHT AND FORM
Maximum Height
Maximum height is calculated to the top of roofline or roof structures including but not limited to elevator
housing, stairways, tanks, ventilating fans, roof signs, etc. Acknowledged
75’ Comply
Height Exception An additional 5’ beyond the height limit is allowed for unique architectural elements as determined by the
Community Development Director. N/A
Maximum Building Length Building façade lengths may not exceed 300’. Comply
BUILDING RELATIONSHIP TO STREET
Minimum Building
Placement on Lot Frontage
Minimum lot frontage that must be developed by a building Comply
Less than 1.00 acre site – 60%
1.00 acre site to 6.99 acre site – 60%
The 60% requirement may be satisfied
with: building placement on the property
line (nonresidential) or setback line
(residential) for 60% of the lot width,
OR
Building placement on the property line
(nonresidential) or setback line
(residential) equal to a minimum of 25%
of the lot frontage, and
Vertical feature placement on the property
line (nonresidential) or setback line
(residential) equal to a maximum of 35%
of the lot frontage. Vertical features
satisfying this requirement are: (1) highly
landscaped decorative wall, which
screens parking area from view of the
public right-of-way, or (2) a highly
landscaped public plaza/public amenity
space incorporating a decorative wall.
The vertical feature’s and/or decorative
wall’s design and placement
Comply
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 32
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Specific Plan Standards GSP-MU Response (3)
must be approved by the Community
Development Director
7.00 acre or greater site – 60%
Ground Floor Height Nonresidential: 14’ minimum
Residential: 10’ minimum Comply
Elevation Above Street Level
Ground Floor Living Space
Ground Floor
Nonresidential
0’ minimum
2’ maximum
Nonresidential Façade
Height at or near Street
Frontage
Minimum height for nonresidential building façade at or near the street frontage, measured to the top of
the façade. For single story buildings, a false front or parapet should be used to achieve this minimum
height. Where exterior frontage height varies along the building frontage, the minimum height shall be
considered to be the average height of the building frontage.
25’ minimum
GROUND FLOOR BUILDING DESIGN
Ground Floor Blank Walls
The amount of the ground level wall area directly visible from the street allowed to be left blank. The
ground level wall area is defined as that portion of the building elevation from grade to a height of 9’.
25% maximum
Comply
Ground Floor Wall Glazing
The area of ground level wall area that must be glazed with clear glass display windows and entries.
Nonresidential: 50% minimum
Residential: 40% minimum
Comply
SETBACKS FOR LIGHT, AIR, AND PRIVACY
Front Nonresidential: No minimum Ground
Floor Residential: 10’ Comply
Side – Adjacent to
Nonresidential Use or
Zoning District Other Than
R-1 and R-2
No minimum unless required by
Community Development Director, Public
Works Director, City Manager or his/her
designee, or other reviewing agency. In
such a case, the minimum setback will be
determined by the Community
Development Director, City Engineer, City
Manager, or other reviewing agency.
See Plans and
Sections
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 33
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Specific Plan Standards GSP-MU Response (4)
Side – Adjacent to Existing
Residential, School, or
Park Use
10’ minimum Comply
Side – Adjacent to R-1 or
R- 2 Zoning District
All residential, nonresidential, and mixed-use developments shall have a side variable height when
abutting R-1 or R-2 zone. This specifies a setback minimum of 10’ from the property line, with the
height increasing at a 60 degree angle from that point.
Comply
See Sections
10’minimum
Rear
20’ minimum if abutting existing residential
use, school, or park, otherwise no
minimum required
Comply
See Sections
Rear – Adjacent to R-1 or
R-2 Zoning Districts
All residential, commercial, and mixed-use developments shall have a rear variable height when abutting
R-1 or R-2 zones.
This specifies a setback minimum of 25’ from the property line, increasing at a 60 degree angle from that
point.
Comply See Sections
PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY AUTO CIRCULATION & ACCESS
Access Driveway Width One Way: 14’ minimum, 20’ maximum
Two Way: 24’ minimum, 30’ maximum Comply
Curb Cuts
1 curb cut/lot, if lot has less than 300’ of lot frontage.
1 curb cut/300’ of lot frontage, if lot frontage is greater than or equal to 300’, unless approved by
Community Development Director and City Engineer, or City Manager.
Example: 450’ lot frontage is allowed 1 curb cut; 600’ lot frontage is allowed 2 curb cuts.
Comply
2 curb cuts
Proposed
Frontage Dedicated to
Parking and/or Driveways 20% of lot frontage maximum NA
PARKING
Minimum Nonresidential Vehicle Parking
Restaurant
Restaurants with floor area less than
2,500 s.f.: 1 standard sized parking space
per 400 s.f.
See Plans
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 34
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Specific Plan Standards GSP-MU Comments (5)
Restaurants with floor area greater than or
equal to 2,500 s.f.: 1 standard sized
parking space per 200 s.f.
Outdoor seating area utilized in
conjunction with an approved eating
and/or drinking establishment shall not
count towards calculations for off-street
parking requirements.
However, if the outdoor area is utilized in
conjunction with nonresidential use, other
than eating and/or drinking establishment,
such outdoor area shall count towards
calculations for off-street parking
requirements.
Comply
See Plans
Nonresidential other than
Restaurant and Hotel 1 standard sized parking space/400 s.f. Comply
See Plans
Minimum Residential Vehicle Parking
Residential (includes guest
parking)
For residential developments, the project
shall provide no less than 1.0 standard
sized parking space/dwelling unit.
Comply
See Plans
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 35
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Specific Plan Standards GSP-MU Comments (6)
. In addition to the residential spaces
described above, 0.5 standard sized
parking space/dwelling unit is required
guest parking.
Parking provided for residential uses or
the residential component of a mixed-use
structure must be covered and secure.
Guest parking may be uncovered.
Comply
See Plans
Minimum Bicycle Parking
Bicycle Parking
See RMC Section 17.28.030(D)(2)(c).
Bicycle parking spaces provided for
residential use must be covered, secured,
and located separately from bicycle
parking spaces provided for
nonresidential uses.
Comply
See Plans
LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE
Landscaping 6% minimum Comply
See Plans
Usable Public Open Space
– Nonresidential Uses or
Nonresidential Component
of Mixed-Use
5% of total parcel area, minimum
Comply
See Plans
Required Landscaping of
Public Open Space for
Nonresidential Uses or
Nonresidential Component
of Mixed-Use
50% of usable public open space,
minimum
Comply
See Plans
Usable Private Common
Open Space – Residential
Uses and Residential
Component of Mixed-Use
150 s.f./dwelling unit minimum Comply
See Plans
Private Usable Open
Space
Private open space must be open to air, not fully enclosed with walls. Private open space cannot be covered by a
roof by more than 50% of the area; however, balconies can have up to 100% ceiling coverage. Private open
space includes balconies, patios, or yards.
75 s.f./unit minimum OR
1. 60 s.f. /dwelling unit minimum;
Comply
See Plans
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 36
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Specific Plan Standards GSP-MU Comments (7)
2. Private usable open space square
footage per unit and usable private
common open space square footage per
unit shall total at least 350
s.f./ unit; and
3. Approval of the Community
Development Director.
Sidewalks, walkways, equipment areas
associated with usable private open space
are not eligible for inclusion in the
calculation.
Comply
See Plans
Private Open Space
Ground Floor Dimension
8’ in any direction minimum
Comply
See Plans
Private Open Space
Balcony Dimension
5’ in any direction minimum
Comply
See Plans
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 37
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
significantly impact these residents because light currently exists in the area. The light in the immediate
project vicinity associated with existing residential and commercial development would minimize the
lighting impact of the project to existing residents.
There would be an incremental increase in the amount of light on area roadways from the headlights of
the motor vehicles generated by the project. Since all of the roadways that would serve project traffic,
such as Garvey Avenue and Prospect Avenue, have nighttime lighting from existing motor vehicle traffic
the nighttime lighting by project traffic would not be new or unique to the roadways. While the project
would incrementally increase the amount of nighttime motor vehicle lighting on area roadways, the
increase in motor vehicle lighting would not significantly impact the existing land uses adjacent to the
roadways.
Lights from the existing commercial uses adjacent to and within close proximity to the project, including
the McDonald’s restaurant west of the site and the commercial uses south and east of the site generate
nighttime lighting that extends onto the project site. Therefore, the lighting that would be generated by
the project would not be new or unique to the project vicinity.
The project proposes to construct a six-foot decorative masonry wall along the north project boundary,
which would prevent automobile lights entering and leaving the site from shining directly onto the
residential units adjacent to and north of the site. Thus, the headlights of the cars leaving the ground
level parking area of the building would not shine directly onto the residential units north of the site. Figure
14 shows landscaped walls that are proposed on the north side of the second and third floors of the
mixed-use building. These landscaped walls would prevent headlights of cars on those floors from
shining directly onto the residences north of the site. The headlights of cars exiting the site at the project
driveway at Prospect Avenue would shine directly onto the McDonalds restaurant parking lot that is
adjacent to and west of Prospect Avenue. The headlights of cars exiting the project site onto Prospect
Avenue would shine onto a commercial use and not existing residential development.
City required parking lot lights, exterior safety and security lighting along with interior lighting of the
residential units would be visible to adjacent residents north and northwest of the site. The wall along
the north side of the mixed-use building along with the proposed six-foot decorative masonry wall along
the north project boundary would eliminate headlights from the cars in the ground level parking lot from
shinning onto the yards and residences of the residents adjacent to and north of the project.
The nighttime safety, security and aesthetic lighting associated with the project would be visible to the
surrounding land uses closest to the project, including the light sensitive residents adjacent to and north
of the site. While the interior and exterior lights of the proposed seven-story mixed-use building would
be greater than the existing vacant site condition, there is lighting in the project vicinity that is generated
by existing commercial development.
Figures 15 and 16 show the proposed exterior light fixtures for the building. As shown, the light fixtures
are located approximately 10 feet from the ground level along the north, west and south sides of the
building. No light fixtures are proposed for the east side of the building that is adjacent to existing
commercial uses. Therefore, the project would not generate new sources of lighting that do not already
exist within the project area. Although the lighting generated by the project would be greater than the
vacant site condition, the increased project lighting is not anticipated to be significantly greater than the
intensity of the light of existing commercial development adjacent to and within the immediate vicinity of
the project.
To ensure that the proposed exterior building lighting plan does not significantly impact existing adjacent
and surrounding land uses, the following measure is recommended to reduce off-site lighting impacts to
less than significant.
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107LOS ANGELES, CA 90012p. 213.537.0910info@scaleslab.comwww.scaleslab.comPROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USEDATE:SHEET:DESCRIPTION:DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.7539 GARVEY AVE.ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIARENDERINGA-312VIEW ALONG PROSPECT AVE.21-09-01Figure 14
North Building Elevation Rendering
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
1ST LEVEL0' - 0"
2ND LEVEL14' - 0"
3RD LEVEL25' - 0"
4TH LEVEL35' - 0"
5TH LEVEL45' - 0"
6TH LEVEL55' - 0"
7TH LEVEL65' - 0"
ROOF LEVEL75' - 0"14'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"75'-0"TOP OFPARAPET
5'-0"5'-0"1ST LEVEL0' - 0"
2ND LEVEL14' - 0"
3RD LEVEL25' - 0"
4TH LEVEL35' - 0"
5TH LEVEL45' - 0"
6TH LEVEL55' - 0"
7TH LEVEL65' - 0"
ROOF LEVEL75' - 0"14'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"75'-0"TOP OFPARAPET
5'-0"5'-0"SOUTH ELEVATION2
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION1
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
MATERIAL LEGEND
L EXTERIOR LIGHT (WALL SCONCE)
L L L
Figure 15
South and East Exterior Light Fixtures
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
1ST LEVEL0' - 0"
2ND LEVEL14' - 0"
3RD LEVEL25' - 0"
4TH LEVEL35' - 0"
5TH LEVEL45' - 0"
6TH LEVEL55' - 0"
7TH LEVEL65' - 0"
ROOF LEVEL75' - 0"14'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"75'-0"TOP OFPARAPET
5'-0"5'-0"1ST LEVEL0' - 0"
2ND LEVEL14' - 0"
3RD LEVEL25' - 0"
4TH LEVEL35' - 0"
5TH LEVEL45' - 0"
6TH LEVEL55' - 0"
7TH LEVEL65' - 0"
ROOF LEVEL75' - 0"14'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"75'-0"TOP OFPARAPET
5'-0"5'-0"WEST ELEVATION1
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION2
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
MATERIAL LEGEND
L EXTERIOR LIGHT (WALL SCONCE)
LL L
LL
Figure 16
North and West Exterior Light Fixtures
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 41
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Mitigation Measure No. 1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a
lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates the
following light reducing measures as applicable:
• Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/or
different lighting distribution.
• Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed
lighting fixtures.
• Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures.
• Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies
• A combination of the above.
Glare
Glare from the windows and metal surfaces of the proposed mixed-use building could impact adjacent
land uses that are glare-sensitive, especially the existing residences north of the project site. A six-foot
decorative masonry wall is proposed along the entire length of the north project boundary and would
block and eliminate ground level glare impacts to the residents north of the project. Glare from the live-
work and apartment windows and metal building materials above the ground floor could extend to the
resident’s north of the project. However, none of the proposed project building designs and materials
would prevent some glare by the project from extending to the existing residences north of the site.
For the most part, the windows on the second through seventh floors could generate glare to existing
land uses adjacent to and in close proximity to the site at specific times of the year when the sun angle
would generate glare. The glass walls on the balconies on all sides of the building on the fourth through
seventh floors could also generate glare to existing land uses in close proximity of the project. While
some of the windows of the live-work units and apartments are recessed into the building, glare could
still be generated during specific periods of the day. Because the windows are recessed and somewhat
set-back into the building to minimize the angle of the sun shining on the windows, glare from the windows
to the residences north of the site and other surrounding areas would be minimal. The project would not
generate glare to the residences north of the site during by the residential units on the north side of the
building during the winter months when the sun is in the southern horizon.
The glass of the store-fronts on the ground level along Prospect Avenue and Garvey Avenue could
generate glare to pedestrians and motorists on the adjacent streets and commercial uses. However,
due to the design of the building, including recessed store-fronts and awnings along the top of the
storefronts, the glare from the stores on the ground level is not anticipated to significantly impact
pedestrians, motorists or existing commercial uses adjacent to the site.
While the project would increase the amount of light and glare that is generated from the site currently,
the light and glare impacts to the existing residents north of the site, the pedestrians, motorists and
commercial uses adjacent to and west, south and east of the site would be less than significant.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is vacant. There
are no agricultural uses either on or adjacent to the site. The site is designated “Area Not Mapped” by
the State of California Department of Conservation as of 20168, which means the site has not been
mapped for agricultural purposes by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and
8 https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 42
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Monitoring Program (FMMP). The project would not convert prime, unique, or farmland of statewide
importance to non-agricultural use and impact farmland.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The
project site is not in a Williamson Act contact. The existing Garvey Avenue Specific Plan zoning for the
site does not allow agricultural use. The zoning for the properties adjacent to the site does not allow
agricultural use on those properties. The project would not conflict with any existing agricultural use or
existing Williamson Act contracts since there are no agricultural uses on or adjacent to the site.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No
Impact. There are no timber or forests in the City of Rosemead. The existing Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan zoning does not allow timber or forest production on the site and the project does not propose
timberland production for the property. The project would not impact any forest or timber production
since there is no forest or timber production on the site and the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan does not
allow forest or timber production within the boundary of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. See
Response to Section “II.c” above.
d) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could
individually or cumulatively result in the loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. As
discussed in Section “II.a” above, the project would not result in the loss of any farmland, either
individually or cumulatively and would not have any impact to farmland.
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant
Impact. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is the primary federal agency for
regulating air quality. The EPA implements the provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA). This Act
establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that are applicable nationwide. The EPA
designates areas with pollutant concentrations that do not meet the NAAQS as non-attainment areas for
each criteria pollutant. States are required by the FCAA to prepare State Implementation Plans (SIP) for
designated non-attainment areas. The SIP is required to demonstrate how the areas would attain the
NAAQS by the prescribed deadlines and what measures would be required to attain the standards. The
EPA also oversees implementation of the prescribed measures. Areas that achieve the NAAQS after a
non-attainment designation are redesignated as maintenance areas and must have approved
Maintenance Plans to ensure continued attainment of the NAAQS.
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) required all air pollution control districts in the state to prepare plans
to reduce pollutant concentrations exceeding the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and
ultimately achieve the CAAQS. The districts are required to review and revise these plans every three
years. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), in which the project is located,
satisfies this requirement through the publication of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The
AQMP is developed by SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in
coordination with local governments and the private sector. The AQMP is incorporated into the SIP by
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to satisfy FCAA requirements discussed above.
The CCAA requires plans to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS for which an area is designated as
nonattainment. Further, the CCAA requires SCAQMD to revise its plan to reduce pollutant concentrations
exceeding the CAAQS every three years. In the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), SCAQMD and SCAG,
in coordination with local governments and the private sector, develop the AQMP for the air basin to
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 43
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
satisfy these requirements. The AQMP is the most important air management document for the basin
because it provides the blueprint for meeting state and federal ambient air quality standards.
On December 7, 2012, the 2012 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board. The primary
task of the 2012 AQMP is to bring the basin into attainment with federal health-based standards for
unhealthful fine particulate matter (PM2.5) by 2014. The document states that to have any reasonable
expectation of meeting the 2023 ozone deadline, the scope and pace of continued air quality
improvement must greatly intensify.
AQMPs are required to be updated every three years. The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD
Board on March 3, 2017, and has been submitted to the California Air Resources Board for forwarding
to the EPA. The 2016 AQMP acknowledges that motor vehicle emissions have been effectively controlled
and that reductions in NOx, the continuing ozone problem pollutant, may need to come from major
stationary sources (power plants, refineries, landfill flares, etc.). The current attainment deadlines for all
federal non-attainment pollutants are now as follows:
• 8-hour ozone (70 ppb) 2032
• Annual PM-2.5 (12 g/m3) 2025
• 8-hour ozone (75 ppb) 2024 (old standard)
• 1-hour ozone (120 ppb) 2023 (rescinded standard)
• 24-hour PM-2.5 (35 g/m3) 2019
The project does not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or
regulations governing mixed-use development projects. The conformity of a project with adopted plans,
forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick
by which the significance of a project impact of planned growth is determined. The SCAQMD, however,
while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth-accommodating document, does not favor designating
regional impacts as less than significant just because a proposed development is consistent with regional
growth projections. The potential air quality impact significance of the proposed project is therefore
analyzed on a project-specific basis. As shown in the analysis below, the specific project construction
and operational emissions are less than significant and as a result, project emissions would not obstruct
implementation of the SCAB 2016 Air Quality Management Plan.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less
Than Significant Impact. Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth
within the project area. However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from
mobile sources, which travel well out of the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the
cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered,
would cover an even larger area.
The project is located within the SCAB and non-attainment for ozone and PM10 particulate matter.
Construction and operation of cumulative projects would further degrade the local air quality, as well as
the air quality of the South Coast Air Basin. The greatest cumulative impact on the regional air quality is
the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and
industrial development and the use of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the construction of
these projects. Air quality would be temporarily degraded during construction activities that occur
separately or simultaneously. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do
not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do
not add to the overall cumulative impact.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 44
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
As stated in Section “III.c” below, based on the air quality report that was prepared for the project, the
project would not generate any short- or long-term air emissions that exceed SCAQMD emission
thresholds. Therefore, the project would not have any significant cumulative criteria pollutant impacts.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated. An air quality and greenhouse gas report9 was prepared for the project
and a copy is included in Appendix A of this MND.
A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to
exposure to an air contaminant. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residents
adjacent to and north of the site. The following are land uses (sensitive sites) where sensitive receptors
are typically located:
• Schools, playgrounds and childcare centers
• Long-term health care facilities
• Rehabilitation centers
• Convalescent centers
• Hospitals
• Retirement homes
• Residences10
Criteria Pollutants, Health Effects, and Standards
Under the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), the U.S. EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for six major pollutants; ozone (O3), respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine
particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead.
These six air pollutants are referred to as the criteria pollutants. The NAAQS are two tiered: primary, to
protect public health, and secondary, to prevent degradation to the environment (i.e., impairment of
visibility, damage to vegetation and property).
Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the California Air Resources Board has established California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) to protect the health and welfare of Californians. State
standards have been established for the six criteria pollutants as well as four additional pollutants;
visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Table 2 presents the state and
national ambient air quality standards. Table 3 shows the health effects of the various pollutants.
Monitored Air Quality
Air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air
quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Long term air quality
monitoring is carried out by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at 38 air-
monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station in most areas. Existing and probable
future levels of air quality in Pomona can be best inferred from the ambient air quality measurements
conducted by SCAQMD at its Pomona, Upland and Ontario (near Route 60) air monitoring stations.
These stations measure both regional pollution levels such as ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide
and PM-2.5 dust (particulates). Table 4 summarizes the last four years of monitoring data from a
composite of these data resources.
9 Air Quality and GHG Analysis, Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project, City of Rosemead, Ca, Giroux & Associates, October 12, 2021.
10 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local
Planning, Chapter 2, page 2-1.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 45
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Table 2
Ambient Air Quality Standards
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 46
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 47
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Table 3
Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Carbon Monoxide
(CO) • Incomplete combustion of fuels and other
carbon-containing substances, such as motor
exhaust.
• Natural events, such as decomposition of
organic matter.
• Reduced tolerance for exercise.
• Impairment of mental function.
• Impairment of fetal development.
• Death at high levels of exposure.
• Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina).
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2) • Motor vehicle exhaust.
• High temperature stationary combustion.
• Atmospheric reactions.
• Aggravation of respiratory illness.
• Reduced visibility.
• Reduced plant growth.
• Formation of acid rain.
Ozone
(O3) • Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with
nitrogen oxides in sunlight.
• Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
diseases.
• Irritation of eyes.
• Impairment of cardiopulmonary function.
• Plant leaf injury.
Lead (Pb) • Contaminated soil. • Impairment of blood function and nerve
construction.
• Behavioral and hearing problems in children.
Respirable Particulate
Matter
(PM-10)
• Stationary combustion of solid fuels.
• Construction activities.
• Industrial processes.
• Atmospheric chemical reactions.
• Reduced lung function.
• Aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollutants.
• Aggravation of respiratory and cardio respiratory
diseases.
• Increased cough and chest discomfort.
• Soiling.
• Reduced visibility.
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM-2.5) • Fuel combustion in motor vehicles,
equipment, and industrial sources.
• Residential and agricultural burning.
• Industrial processes.
• Also, formed from photochemical reactions of
other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides,
and organics.
• Increases respiratory disease.
• Lung damage.
• Cancer and premature death.
• Reduces visibility and results in surface soiling.
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) • Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels.
• Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores.
• Industrial processes.
• Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma,
emphysema).
• Reduced lung function.
• Irritation of eyes.
• Reduced visibility.
• Plant injury.
• Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather,
finishes, coatings, etc.
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 48
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Table 4
Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2017-2020)
(Number of Days Standards Were Exceeded, and Maximum Levels During Such Violations)
Pollutant/Standard 2017 2018 2019 2020
1-Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 7 3 5 20
8-Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) 9 5 7 23
8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F) 4 2 3 15
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.17
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.11
Carbon Monoxide
1-Hour > 20. ppm (S) 0 0 0 0
1-Hour > 9. ppm (S, F) 0 0 0 0
Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.2 1.8 1.9 1.7
Nitrogen Dioxide
1-Hour > 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.07
Respirable Particulates (PM-10)
24-Hour > 50 g/m3 (S) 6/55 10/60 4/61 8/43
24-Hour > 150 g/m3 (F) 0/55 060 0/61 0/43
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 83. 78. 82. 95.
Fine Particulates (PM-2.5)
24-Hour > 35 g/m3 (F) 1/119 0/133 0/119 0/116
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 49.5 35.4 29.6 35.4
S=State Standard, F=Federal Standard
Source: South Coast AQMD – Pico Rivera Air Monitoring Station for Ozone, CO2, NOx and PM-2.5, Azusa Air Monitoring Station
for PM-10. data: www.arb.ca.gov/adam/
The following conclusions can be drawn from the data in Table 4:
• Photochemical smog (ozone) levels occasionally exceed air quality standards. The 8-hour state
ozone standard has been exceeded on nine percent of all days. The 1-hour state standard as
well as the 8-hour federal standard have been exceeded approximately five percent of all days in
the past four years. While ozone levels are still high, they are lower than 10 to 20 years ago.
Attainment of all clean air standards in the project vicinity is not likely to occur soon, but the
severity and frequency of violations is expected to continue to slowly decline during the current
decade.
• Measurements of carbon monoxide have shown low baseline levels in comparison to the most
stringent one- and eight-hour standards.
• Respirable dust (PM-10) levels exceed the state standard on approximately four percent of
measurement days, but the less stringent federal PM-10 standard has not been violated once for
the same time period. Year to year fluctuations of overall maximum 24-hour PM-10 levels seem
to follow no discernable trend, though 2016 had the lowest maximum 24-hour concentration in
recent history.
• A substantial fraction of PM-10 is comprised of ultra-small diameter particulates capable of being
inhaled into deep lung tissue (PM-2.5). Both the frequency of violations of particulate standards,
as well as high percentage of PM-2.5, are occasional air quality concerns in the project area.
However, approximately two percent of all days exceeded the current national 24-hour standard
of 35 ug/m3 from 2015-2018.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 49
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Air Emission Thresholds
In the "1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook”, SCAQMD establishes significance thresholds to assess the
impact of project related air pollutant emissions. These emissions and their thresholds are shown in
Table 5. As shown, there are separate thresholds for short-term construction and long-term operational
emissions. A project with daily emission rates below these thresholds is considered to have a less than
significant effect on air quality. The thresholds shown below are used to evaluate the potential project
air emission impacts of the project.
Table 5
SCAQMD Daily Emissions Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant Construction Operations
ROG 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
PM-10 150 150
PM-2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
Lead 3 3
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev.
Construction Emission Impacts
Dust is typically the primary concern during construction of new buildings. Because such emissions are
not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source they are called "fugitive emissions.”
Emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed,
number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). Because of the inherent uncertainty in the
predictive factors for estimating fugitive dust generation, regulatory agencies typically use one universal
"default" factor based on the area disturbed assuming that all other input parameters into emission rate
prediction fall into midrange average values.
CalEEMod was developed by the SCAQMD to provide a model to calculate both construction and
operational emissions from a variety of land use projects. It calculates both the daily maximum and
annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.
Estimated construction emissions were modeled using CalEEMod2020.4.0 to identify maximum daily
emissions for each pollutant during project construction using default construction equipment and a
construction schedule for a project of the size proposed and shown in Table 6. Utilizing the equipment
fleet in Table 6, the worst-case daily construction emissions were calculated and are shown in Table 7.
Table 6
Construction Activity Equipment Fleet – Proposed Project
Phase Name and Duration Equipment
Grading including 1,220 cubic yards of import
(5 days)
1 Grader
1 Dozer
1 Loader/Backhoe
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 50
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Construction (100 days)
1 Crane
2 Loader/Backhoes
2 Forklifts
Paving (5 days)
1 Paver
4 Mixers
1 Loader/Backhoe
1 Roller
Table 7
Construction Activity Emissions - Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
Maximal Construction
Emissions ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
2022
Unmitigated 55.4 16.9 11.5 0.0 6.1 3.2
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
As shown in Table 7, the peak daily construction activity emissions are estimated to be below SCAQMD
CEQA thresholds without the need for mitigation. The only model-based mitigation measure that was
applied to the project was watering exposed dirt surfaces at least three times per day during grading to
minimize the generation of fugitive dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403.
SCAQMD’s Rule 403
The project would be required to comply with SCAQMD rules to reduce fugitive dust emissions during
project construction and the life of the project. Project compliance with Rule 403 is achieved through the
application of standard best management practices during construction and operation activities, which
include the application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, manage haul road dust by the
use of water, cover haul vehicles, restrict vehicle speeds on on-site unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweep
loose dirt from paved site access roadways, stop construction activity when wind speeds exceed 25 mph
and establish a permanent ground cover on finished areas.
While construction activities are not anticipated to cause dust emissions to exceed SCAQMD CEQA
thresholds, especially with compliance with Rule 403, the following mitigation measure is recommended
for enhanced dust control because the air basin is non-attainment.
Mitigation Measure No. 2 Prior to the start and throughout project construction, the contractor shall
implement and maintain the following fugitive dust control measures:
• Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive areas.
• Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the
construction site (typically 2-3 times/day).
• Cover all stockpiles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed.
• Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen
materials.
• Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone.
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material and require all
trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the
construction site.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 51
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Similarly, ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) are calculated to be below SCAQMD thresholds.
However, because of the regional non-attainment for photochemical smog, the use of reasonably
available control measures to control diesel exhaust emissions is recommended. The following mitigation
measure is recommended to control combustion emissions:
Mitigation Measure No. 3 Throughout project construction the contractor shall:
• Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.
• Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better heavy
equipment.
• Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road
equipment.
Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions from the project would be due to diesel
particulate emissions due to the operation of heavy equipment operations during construction of the
project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are described
in terms of “individual cancer risk”. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to
concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 30-year lifetime would contract cancer, based on the use
of standard risk-assessment methodology. Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction
equipment and the short-term construction schedule, the project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 30
years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk.
Furthermore, construction-based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions)
do not exceed local or regional thresholds. Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant
impacts would occur during project construction.
Localized Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition
to the more regional emissions-based thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called
Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to Governing Board’s
Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1-4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted
in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD’s Mobile Source Committee in February 2005.
LST screening tables are available for 25, 50, 100, 200- and 500-meter source-receptor distances. For
the proposed project, there are residential uses adjacent to and north of the project site, approximately
130 feet northwest of the project, west of Prospect Avenue and residents approximately 230 feet south
of the project, south of Garvey Avenue. The most conservative 25-meter distance was modeled for the
project associated with the residents adjacent to and north of the project.
For the project, the primary source of potential LST impact would be during construction. LSTs are
applicable for a sensitive receptor where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours such
as a residence, hospital or convalescent facility. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria
pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5)
and represent the maximum emissions by a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an
exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The following
LST thresholds and estimated emissions (pounds per day) are shown in Table 8 based on a disturbance
of 1.0 acre per day.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 52
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Table 8
LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day)
LST 1.0 acres/25 meters
South San Gabriel Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
LST Threshold 673 83 5 4
Max. On-Site Emissions 7 12 5 3
As shown in Table 8, the project construction emissions are less than the LST emission thresholds. As
a result, project construction emissions would be less than significant.
Operational Emission Impacts
The calculated operational emissions generated by the project based on CalEEMod2020.4.0 are shown
in Table 9. As shown, the operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD operational emission
thresholds of significance. The construction and long-term operational emissions by the project would be
less than significant.
Table 9
Daily Operational Emissions (2023)
Operational Emissions (lbs/day)
Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
Area* 2.1 1.2 6.7 0.0 0.1 0.1
Energy 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mobile 2.0 2.2 21.3 0.0 5.0 1.3
Total 4.2 3.7 28.1 0.1 5.1 1.4
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
*no wood burning fireplaces-only natural gas
Source: CalEEMod Output in Appendix
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest residents to the project are adjacent to
and north of the site. In addition, there are existing residences approximately 130 feet northwest of the
project, west of Prospect Avenue and 230 feet south of the site, south of Garvey Avenue. As shown in
Table 7 above, the project would not exceed the threshold of any measured pollutant during project
construction. Similarly, as shown in Table 8, the project would not exceed any measured pollutant during
the operational life of the project. Depending on wind patterns, some diesel odors associated with the
operation of construction equipment could extend to the residents north of the site during project
construction. However, this condition would be temporary and short-term when larger diesel-powered
construction equipment would be operating on the site, which would be during project grading. Once
project grading is completed the use of diesel-powered equipment on the site would be minimal. Although
there would be a potential for odors due to the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment to
extend to the residents adjacent to and north of the site and possibly the residents that are approximately
130 feet northwest of the site, the project is not anticipated to generate any emissions or odors during
either construction or the operational life of the project and significantly impact the residents adjacent to
and north of the site. The project would not generate any objectionable odors and significantly impact
any area sensitive receptors.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 53
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? No Impact. The project site is vacant. The on-site vegetation includes introduced urban
landscaping including five palm trees along the project perimeter, non-native grasses throughout the site
and a few shrubs. The existing on-site non-native landscaping is minimal and does not support any
wildlife species, including special candidate, sensitive or special status animal species and none of the
existing introduced non-native urban landscaping is a candidate for a sensitive or special status species.
The project would not impact wildlife or wildlife habitat.
b) Have substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The site was disturbed in the past with the
development of a mobile home park and residential use that have been demolished. The project site has
been vacant since 2012. There is no riparian habitat or other natural communities on the site. The
existing land uses adjacent to the site include residential and commercial development and as a result
there is no riparian habitat or other natural habitat communities adjacent to the project site. The project
would not impact any riparian or other natural communities either on or adjacent to the site.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means? No Impact. Please see Section “IV.b” above.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project is located in an urbanized area surrounded by
residential and commercial development. There is no habitat on the site that serves or could serve as a
migratory wildlife corridor or nursery site. The project would not impact or impede any wildlife corridors
or wildlife nursery sites.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree
preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. There is a eucalyptus street tree along the Garvey
Avenue street frontage adjacent to the site. There are no street trees along the project frontage on
Prospect Avenue. There are no oak trees on or adjacent to the project site that would be removed by
the project. Therefore, no oak trees would require protection or replacement in compliance with
Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 17.104 Oak Tree Preservation. The project would not have any oak
tree or any other tree preservation impacts. The project would not impact any local policies that protect
biological resources, including trees.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No
Impact. The City of Rosemead is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The
project would not conflict with and impact any habitat or natural community conservation plan.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5? No Impact. The site was previously developed with a mobile home park and residential use
that have been demolished. The project site has been vacant since 2012. There are no historical
resources on the site that would be impacted by the project.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource as
defined in §15064.5? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The site was disturbed
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 54
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
in the past with the construction of a mobile home park and residential use that have been demolished.
The project site has been vacant since 2012.
The project site is located in an urbanized area that has been disturbed associated with development
activities on both the project site and the adjacent properties. Because the project site has been disturbed
in the past with grading and construction of a mobile home park and residence that have been
demolished, any cultural resources that may have existed near the surface have been previously
unearthed or disturbed during the construction and demolition of the former uses. There are no records
of any recorded archaeological resources either on or adjacent to the project site. Despite previous
disturbances of the project site in the past that may have displaced archaeological resources on the
surface, it is possible that intact archaeological resources could exist below the surface area of the site
that was previously undisturbed during previous grading and building construction.
As a result, Mitigation Measures No. 4 through 7 are recommended to reduce potentially significant
archaeological and Tribal resource impacts to previously undiscovered resources that may be
encountered during project grading and construction to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 4 The project developer shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist
who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and
Standards, to conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training for
construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities.
The training session shall be carried out by a cultural resource professional
with expertise in archaeology, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. The training session
shall include a handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological
resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the
procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of archaeological
monitors, and the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist
would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary.
Mitigation Measure No. 5 In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-
disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted
away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer
area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find where
construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until a qualified
archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has
evaluated the area of the find. Work shall be allowed to continue outside
of the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project
construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional
archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be
determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be
contacted and consulted, and Native American construction monitoring
shall be initiated. The project developer and the City shall coordinate with
the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the
resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data
recovery excavations to address treatment of the resource along with
subsequent laboratory processing and analysis.
Mitigation Measure No. 6 The project developer shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist,
who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications
and Standards to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 55
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
at depths below 2’ feet to determine if construction excavations have
exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological resources.
After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks shall be
conducted at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist. If the qualified
archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed or
have a high probability to expose archaeological artifacts construction
monitoring for Archaeological Resources shall be required. The project
developer shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who will work
under the guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist, who
meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and Standards. The archaeological monitor
shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading,
trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill younger Pleistocene alluvial
sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require
multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be
based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known
archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus
artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance
and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring
can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the
project archaeologist.
Mitigation Measure No. 7 The archaeological monitor, under the direction of a qualified professional
archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards, shall prepare a final report at the conclusion
of archaeological monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the project
developer, the South Central Costal Information Center, the City, and
representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the
satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures.
The report shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any,
evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register and
CEQA, and treatment of the resources.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact.
The project site has not been used as a cemetery in the past. In addition, the site is not known to have
been used for any activities that have resulted in human remains being present on the property. In the
unlikely event that human remains are found during construction, those remains would require proper
treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5-7055 describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during
excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section
5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the
County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, and consultation with the
individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the “most likely descendant.” If
human remains are found during excavation, the excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and in
any area that is reasonably suspected to contain remains adjacent to the find, until the County Coroner
has been called, the remains have been investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been
made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with State regulations,
which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, impacts in
this regard would be considered less than significant.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 56
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Compliance with Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5-7055 and Public Resources Code Section
5097.98, related to protection of human remains, would reduce potential impacts associated with future
development project proposals to a less than significant level.
VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than
Significant Impact. Information found in this section, as well as other aspects of the project’s energy
implications, are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this MND, including Section VIII (Greenhouse
Gas Emissions) and Section XVII (Transportation) of this MND.
Construction-Related Energy Consumption
Construction equipment would be operated on the site for grading, construction of utilities, paving, and
construction of the proposed seven-story mixed-use building. The types of construction equipment that
would be operated on the site include graders, loaders/backhoes, dozers, air compressors, cranes,
forklifts, generators, welders, mixers, rollers, trenchers and pavers. The majority of the equipment would
likely be diesel-fueled; however, smaller equipment, such as air compressors and forklifts may be electric,
gas, or natural gas-fueled. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed the construction
equipment would be diesel-fueled, due to the speculative nature of specifying the amounts and types of
non-diesel equipment that might be used, and the difficulties in calculating the energy, which would be
consumed by this non-diesel equipment.
The number of construction workers required to construct the project would vary based on the phase of
construction and the activity taking place. The transportation fuel required by construction workers to
travel to and from the site would depend on the total number of worker trips estimated for the duration of
construction activity. A 2007 study by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) estimates
the statewide average fuel economy for all vehicle types (automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles) in the
year 2020 is 18.78 miles per gallon.11 Assuming construction worker vehicles have an average fuel
economy consistent with the Caltrans study and each construction worker commutes an average of 20
miles a day to and from the site, the maximum 25 workers on-site during each phase of project
construction is estimated to consume approximately 27 gallons of gasoline a day. Assuming all 25
construction workers are employed at the site for a year (52 weeks), the fuel used by construction workers
commuting to the site is approximately 173 barrels (6,922 gallons) of gasoline and represents less than
0.0005 percent of the statewide transportation gasoline consumption in 2017, which is the latest year that
data is available.12
Construction equipment fuels (e.g., diesel, gasoline, natural gas) would be provided by local or regional
suppliers and vendors. Electricity would be supplied by the local utility provider (e.g., Southern California
Edison) via existing connections. A temporary water supply, primarily for fugitive dust suppression and
street sweeping, would also be supplied by the local provider (e.g., San Gabriel Valley Water Company).
Electricity used during construction to provide temporary power for lighting and electronic equipment
(e.g., computers, etc.) inside temporary construction trailers and for outdoor lighting when necessary for
general construction activity would generally not result in a substantial increase in on-site electricity use.
Electricity use during construction would be variable depending on lighting needs and the use of electric-
powered equipment and would be temporary for the duration of construction activities. Thus, electricity
use during construction would generally be considered negligible.
11 2007 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast, California Department of Transportation, Table 1, (2008).
12California 2017 Transportation gasoline consumption – 366,820 barrels; https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/pdf/fuel_mg.pdf
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 57
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Energy Conservation: Regulatory Compliance
The project would utilize construction contractors who demonstrate compliance with applicable CARB
regulations governing the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on-
and off-road equipment. CARB has adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel
motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other Toxic Air
Contaminants (TACs). Compliance with the above anti-idling and emissions regulations would result in
a more efficient use of construction-related energy and minimize or eliminate wasteful and unnecessary
consumption of energy.
With respect to solid waste, CALGreen requires 65% of most construction and demolition waste be
diverted from a landfill. The project would generate various types of debris during construction.
Republic Services is the contract solid waste hauler for the City of Rosemead and would serve the project.
The solid waste from the project will be hauled to the Puente Hills Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in
the City of Whittier and operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. The MRF separates
recyclable material from municipal solid waste and all residual waste is hauled to permitted landfills and
all recovered recyclable materials are recycled in compliance with state law.
Anticipated Energy Consumption
The daily operation of the project would generate a demand for electricity, natural gas, and water supply,
as well as generating wastewater requiring conveyance, treatment and disposal off-site, and solid waste
requiring off-site disposal. Southern California Edison is the electrical purveyor in the City of Rosemead
and would provide electricity to the project. The Southern California Gas Company is the natural gas
purveyor in the City and would provide natural gas to the project.
Energy Conservation: Regulatory Compliance
The California Energy Commission (CEC) first adopted the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential
and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR, Title 24, Part 6) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to
reduce energy consumption in the state. Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to
as CALGreen. The purpose of CALGreen 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 quality.”13 As of January 1, 2011, CALGreen
is mandatory for the construction of all new buildings in the state. CALGreen establishes mandatory
measures for new residential and non-residential buildings. Such mandatory measures include energy
efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, planning and design and overall environmental
quality.14 CALGreen was most recently updated in 2016 to include new mandatory measures for
residential as well as nonresidential uses; the new measures took effect on January 1, 2017.15 The
project would be required by the City to comply with the applicable provisions of Title 24 and CALGreen.
With respect to solid waste, the project is required to comply with applicable regulations, including those
pertaining to waste reduction and recycling as required by the State of California. The waste hauler
serving the project would divert project-generated municipal waste in accordance with applicable city
ordinances.
13 California Building Standards Commission, 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, (2016).
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 58
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Energy Conservation: Project Design Features
The project would be designed to include green building, energy saving, and water saving measures and
other sustainability features. Consistent with the CALGreen, the project would be required to meet and
comply with the residential mandatory measures that include water efficiency and conservation, material
conservation and resource efficiency, environmental quality, etc. As such, the project would be designed
to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.
Estimated Energy Consumption
The long-term operation of the project would result in transportation energy use primarily for residents
that commute to and from their place of employment. Transportation fuels, primarily gasoline, would be
provided by local or regional suppliers and vendors. As discussed previously, in 2017, California
consumed a total of 366,820 thousand barrels of gasoline for transportation, which is part of the total
annual consumption nationwide of 3,404,186 barrels by the transportation sector.16 Project-related
vehicles would require a fraction of a percent of the total state’s transportation fuel consumption. A 2008
study by Caltrans determined that the statewide average fuel economy for all vehicle types (automobiles,
trucks, and motorcycles) in 2020 would be 18.78 miles per gallon.17
Alternative-Fueled Vehicles
Alternative-fueled, electric, and hybrid vehicles could be used by some of the project residents,
commercial space employees and customers. The use of these types of alternative fueled vehicles would
reduce the overall consumption of gasoline by the project. The effect is anticipated to be minimal in
today’s current vehicle market due to the relatively few alternative vehicles that are in use. According to
the Los Angeles Times, alternative-fueled vehicles make up approximately 2.3% of all vehicles registered
in California.18 The above transportation fuel estimates for the project do not account for alternative-
fueled, electric, and hybrid vehicles, which are more energy efficient vehicles. Thus, the assessment is
a conservative estimate of transportation fuel consumption. The project would not have any wasteful,
inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during either the construction of the project
or the life of the project because the project would be required to comply with all applicable state energy
conservation measures.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less
Than Significant Impact. The project would be required by the City to comply with all applicable
CALGreen and Title 24 state energy requirements to minimize energy consumption. Therefore, the
project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local energy plan. The project would not significantly
impact an energy plan.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Director or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
16 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Table F3: Motor Gasoline Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates, 2017,
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/pdf/fuel_mg.pdf.
17 California Department of Transportation, 2008 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast (June 2009). 18 Los Angeles Times, Electric, hybrid car sales up, California auto emissions down, May 22, 2014,
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-electric-vehicle-sales-up-auto-emissions-down-20140521- story.html. Accessed August
2014.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 59
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Publication 42.) Less Than Significant Impact. A geotechnical report19 was prepared for the project
and a copy is included in Appendix B of this MND.
The project site is not located within a state-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.20
Figure 5-3 of the City of Rosemead General Plan shows the project site is not located within an
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Figure 5-4 of the City of Rosemead General Plan shows the
project is not located in a Fault Hazard Management Zone. The nearest known active regional fault
to the site is the Upper Elysian Park fault that is located approximately 1 mile southeast of the site.
While there are faults in the region that could generate moderate to significant ground shaking at the
site, the incorporation of the recommendations in section 6.0 of the geotechnical report regarding
seismic design in compliance with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and all other local building
codes would reduce potential fault impacts to less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. Because the project site is
located in Southern California and a seismically active area, there is the potential for strong ground
motion at the site. The Upper Elysian Park fault is the closest known active fault to the site and
approximately 1 mile southeast of the site. As with all projects in the City of Rosemead, the design
and construction of the project and all site improvement must comply with the current 2019 CBC and
all applicable local building codes. Project compliance with the 2019 CBC and applicable building
codes would reduce potential strong ground shaking impacts to less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact.
Liquefaction is a phenomenon when loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose their
shear strength during strong ground motions. The primary factors controlling liquefaction include
intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress
conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the
liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations.
Based on Figure 5-5 of the City of Rosemead General Plan the project site is not located within an
area that is mapped as susceptible to an earthquake induced liquefaction. Because the project site
is not located in an area that is susceptible to liquefaction, the soils report did not conduct a
liquefaction study for the site.21 The project is not subject to liquefaction and the impact due to
potential liquefaction impacts is less than significant.
iv. Landslides? No Impact. The project site ranges in elevation from a high of 366 feet above mean
sea level at the southeast corner of the site to a low of 364 feet at the northwest corner of the site, a
difference of 2 feet. Thus, the project site is basically flat and the properties that are adjacent to the
site are also basically flat. The project would not be impacted by landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The City would
require the grading and construction contractor to install and maintain all applicable City required short-
term construction soil erosion control measures to reduce and minimize soil erosion impacts throughout
project grading and construction. The contractor would be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to identify all Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be incorporated
into the project prior to the start of grading and maintained to completion of all construction activities to
reduce and minimize soil erosion. The City has standard soil erosion protection measures that the
contractor would be required to install and maintain throughout grading and construction to minimize off-
19 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Mixed Use Buildings and Associated Structures, APN 5286-022-009 &
010, 7539 & 7545 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, California, Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc.,
September 30, 2021.
20 Ibid, page 3, Section 4.1 Seismicity.
21 Ibid, page 3, Section 4.2 Seismic Inducted Hazards.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 60
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
site soil erosion. The requirement by the City for the contractor to incorporate all applicable mandated
soil erosion control measures into project construction would minimize and reduce potential soil erosion
impacts to less than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the geotechnical report the
proposed development of the project would not be significantly impacted by unstable soil due to an off-
site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or soil collapse. All grading and construction
would have to comply with all applicable requirements of the 2019 CBC and recommendations of the
geotechnical report.22
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. The
geotechnical report did not identify any expansive soils on the site. The project would not be significantly
impacted by expansive soil.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The
project would be required by the City to connect to and be served by the existing public wastewater
collection system that is located in Garvey Avenue adjacent to and south of the site. The project
developer proposes to connect to the existing public sewer system in Garvey Avenue adjacent to the
site. The project would not have any septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal impacts.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature? No Impact. The Rosemead General Plan does not identify the presence of any paleontological
resources in the City. The site was disturbed previously with the construction of a mobile home park and
residence and other site improvements that have been demolished and removed from the site. Because
the site is disturbed and paleontological resources are not known to exist in Rosemead, it is unlikely that
paleontological resources would be uncovered during project construction. The geotechnical report did
not identify any unique geologic features on the site that would potentially contain paleontological
resource and impacted by the project. The project would not have any paleontological resource or
geologic feature impacts.
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. A greenhouse gas report23 was prepared
for the project and a copy is included in Appendix A of this MND.
“Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted
by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as “global warming.”
Greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere by
transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength
heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and
regulation, Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil
22 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Mixed Use Buildings and Associated Structures, APN 5286-022-009 &
010, 7539 & 7545 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, California, Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc.,
September 30, 2021.
23 Air Quality and GHG Analysis, Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project, City of Rosemead, Ca, Giroux & Associates, October 12, 2021.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 61
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and
aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG
emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG
emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions.
California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding
greenhouse gases. AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California
has adopted. The major components of AB 32 include:
• Require the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions beginning with sources or categories of
sources that contribute the most to statewide emissions.
• Requires immediate “early action” control programs on the most readily controlled GHG sources.
• Mandates that by 2020, California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels.
• Forces an overall reduction of GHG gases in California by 25-40%, from business as usual, to be
achieved by 2020.
• Must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards
and to reduce toxic air contaminants.
Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, greater use of
renewable energy, and increased structural energy efficiency. Additionally, through the California
Climate Action Registry (CCAR or the Climate Action Reserve), general and industry-specific protocols
for assessing and reporting GHG emissions have been developed. GHG sources are categorized into
direct sources (i.e. company owned) and indirect sources (i.e. not company owned). Direct sources
include combustion emissions from on-and off-road mobile sources, and fugitive emissions. Indirect
sources include off-site electricity generation and non-company owned mobile sources.
Thresholds of Significance
Under CEQA, a project would have a potentially significant greenhouse gas impact if it:
• Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment, or,
• Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions.
Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards. CEQA
guidelines allow the lead agency to “select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate.” The
most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer
model such as CalEEMod, which was used for the GHG analysis for the proposed project.
In September 2010, the SCAQMD Governing Board Working Group recommended a threshold of 3,000
MT CO2e for all land use types. The 3,000 MT/year CO2e threshold is used for the greenhouse gas
emission analysis for the proposed mixed-use project. In the absence of an adopted numerical threshold
of significance, project related GHG emissions in excess of the guideline level are presumed to trigger a
requirement for enhanced GHG reduction at the project level.
Methodology
The CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 software model was used to calculate the GHG emissions from all
phases of the project for the year 2022, which is the scheduled date of project completion. The project's
emissions were compared to the tier 3 SCAQMD draft screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons CO2e
per year for all land uses.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 62
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction Activity GHG Emissions
During project construction, the CalEEMod2020.4.0 computer model calculates that project construction
activities would generate the annual CO2e emissions shown in Table 10.
Table 10
Construction GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e)
CO2e
Year 2022 133.4
Amortized 4.4
The SCAQMD GHG emission policy for construction activities amortizes emissions over a 30-year
lifetime. As shown, the amortized GHG emissions from the project construction activities are less than
the 3,000 MT/year CO2e threshold and less than significant.
Operational GHG Emissions
The total operational emissions of the project are shown in Table 11. As shown, the total GHG
operational emissions are below the guideline threshold of 3,000 MTY CO2e suggested by the SCAQMD.
Table 11
Annual Operational GHG Emissions, MT CO2(e) tons/year
Consumption Source MT CO2(e) tons/year
Area Sources 17.6
Energy Utilization 176.4
Mobile Source 792.8
Solid Waste Generation 20.7
Water Consumption 26.4
Construction 4.4
Total 1,038.3
Guideline Threshold 3,000
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases? No Impact. The City of Rosemead has not adopted a Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Plan. Therefore, the applicable GHG planning document that is applicable to the project
is AB-32. As discussed in Section “VIII.a” above, the project would not have a significant increase in
either construction or operational GHG emissions. The project generated GHG emissions are calculated
to be 1,038.3 MTCO2(e) tons/year and below the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2(e) tons/year threshold.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG
emissions.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. A Phase I24 Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the site. The Phase I ESA in included in Appendix C of this MND.
24 Phase I Environmental Assessment Report, 7539-7545 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, CA, Orswell & Kasman, Inc., December 5, 2019.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 63
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
The mixed-use project does not propose to transport, use, or dispose of any hazardous materials. The
only hazardous materials that would be transported and stored on the site includes the temporary storage
of hazardous materials for use by the construction contractors to operate and maintain the various types
of motor-powered construction equipment that would be operated during project grading and
construction. The types of hazardous materials that would be anticipated to be used on-site during
construction includes diesel fuel, gasoline, lubricants, paints, solvents, etc. It would be the responsibility
of the contractors to use and store all hazardous materials in compliance with applicable Federal, State,
and local laws and regulations during project construction. The project residents and commercial uses
would use standard cleaning materials to clean and maintain their residences and commercial space
during the operational life of the project. Herbicides and pesticides may be used by the homeowner’s
association to maintain project landscaping. The transportation, use, and storage of all cleaning and
maintenance hazardous materials in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations
would reduce the potential for significant impacts to less than significant. The project would not have any
significant impacts associated with the transportation, use or storage of hazardous materials.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less
Than Significant Impact. Based on historical data at the Los Angeles County Assessor’s office there
was a mobile home/trailer park built on the property at 7539 Garvey Avenue in 1920. There was also a
residence constructed on the property, however the County of Los Angeles Assessor office does not
have a record of the date of its construction. The records at the County of Los Angeles Assessor office
shows that a residence was constructed on the property at 7545 Garvey Avenue, but again no
construction date. The residence at 7539 Garvey Avenue was demolished in January 2012 and the
residence at 7545 was demolished in November 2006.25 Based on Los Angeles County data the site has
been vacant since January 2012.
The various federal, state, county and local government records search that was conducted for the
preparation of the Phase I ESA did not identify any existing or known hazardous materials or incidents
associated with the project site including Superfund site, hazardous waste generators, CalSite facilities,
landfills, hazardous deed restrictions, underground storage tanks, abandoned oil wells, or “hot spots”.26
The Phase I ESA did not find any evidence of building foundations, wastewater clarifiers, sumps, septic
tanks, pits or underground storage tanks on the site during a site inspection. In addition, there were no
signs of illegal dumping, distressed vegetation or obvious contamination observed on the site.27
Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, there are no hazardous materials associated with the project
site and no further environmental studies are required. There are no uses or activities associated with
the long-term use of the site for mixed-use development that would create or release hazardous materials
into the environment. The project would not have any significant hazardous material impacts.
b) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The closest school to
the project site is Richard Garvey Intermediate School that is located at 2720 Jackson Avenue and
approximately 0.05 miles (260 feet) southeast of the site. Ralph Waldo Emerson Elementary School is
located at 7544 Emerson Place and approximately 0.12 miles (600 feet) north of the project. The third
school within one-quarter mile of the project is Arlene Bitely Elementary school that is located at 7501
Fern Avenue and approximately 0.14 mile (730 feet) south of the project. The project does not propose
25 Phase I Environmental Assessment Report, 7539-7545 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, CA, Orswell & Kasman, Inc., December 5, 2019,
page 11.
26 Ibid, page 5.
27 Ibid, page 15.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 64
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
any use that would emit, generate or handle any hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or substances
and impact any schools within one-quarter mile of the project.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or environment? No Impact. Based on the Phase I ESA the project site is not listed as a
hazardous material site on the “Cortese” list pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.28 The
project would not have a hazardous impact to the public or environment per Government Code Section
65962.5.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people working or residing in the project area? No Impact. The closest airport to the project is
San Gabriel Valley Airport, which is approximately 5 miles northeast of the project. The project would
not impact airport operations at San Gabriel Valley Airport or result in any safety hazards for project
guests and employees. The operations at the San Gabriel Valley Airport would not have any safety or
noise impacts to the project guests and employees.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. All of the proposed project improvements
are located on private property. The project would not interfere with or impact any designated evacuation
routes in Rosemead, including Garvey Avenue and Prospect Avenue adjacent to the site. The project
driveway is at Prospect Avenue and designed to allow adequate ingress/egress to the site to minimize
any potential impact to the use of Prospect Avenue as an emergency evacuation route. The project
would not significantly impact any emergency evacuation routes in the City.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires? No Impact. There are no State of California designated wildland fire
areas in Rosemead. See section XX Wildfire for further wildland fire analysis. The project would not be
exposed to or be impacted by a wildland fire.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant
Impact. A Preliminary Hydrology Report29 and a Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan30 were
prepared for the project and a copy of each report is included in Appendix D of this MND.
During project grading and construction, silt could be generated from the site, especially if construction
occurs during the winter months from October to April when rainfall typically occurs. The City would
require the project contractor to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in
accordance with California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Order No. 99-08-
DWQ, Los Angeles County MS4 Permit Order No. R4-2021-0105 and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS004004 (Permit). The SWPPP would require the
contractor to implement Best Available Technology Economically Achievable measures to reduce and
eliminate storm water pollution from all construction activity through the implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs). The purpose of the SWPPP is to identify pollutant sources that may
affect the quality of the storm water that would be discharged from the site during all construction activity.
28 I Phase I Environmental Assessment Report, 7539-7545 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, CA, Orswell & Kasman, Inc., December 5, 2019,
page 7. 29 Preliminary Hydrology Report, 7539 Garvey Ave., Rosemead, CA 91770, Tritech Engineering Associates, January 6, 2022.
30 Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan, 7539 Garvey Ave., Rosemead, CA 91770, Tritech Engineering Associates, January 6,
2022.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 65
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
The SWPPP would require the contractor to identify, construct, and implement the storm water pollution
prevention measures and BMPs necessary to reduce pollutants that are present in the storm water that
is discharged from the site during construction. The SWPPP would include specific BMPs that must be
installed and implemented prior to the start of site clearance, grading, and construction. The installation
and maintenance of all required BMPs by the contractor during construction would reduce potential water
quality impacts to less than significant.
The project developer must comply with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los
Angeles Water Board) requirements of a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) Plan (MS4 Permit Order
No. R4-2021-0105). A MS4 plan would identify, at a minimum, the details to implement the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that would reduce the project’s Stormwater Quality Design Volume
(SWQDV) defined as the runoff from the 85th percentile, 24-hour rain event, as determined from the Los
Angeles County 85th Percentile Precipitation Isohyetal Map (http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/hydrologygis/).
The Los Angeles County MS4 Permit requires the implementation of low impact development (LID) BMPs
in addition to site design and source control measures. LID BMPs are engineered facilities that are
designed to retain or biotreat runoff on the project site. All designated projects must detain the water
quality volume on-site through infiltration, evapotranspiration, storm water runoff harvest and use, or a
combination thereof unless it is demonstrated that it is technically infeasible to do so.31
The clay material on the project site does not feasibly allow on-site percolation of rainfall. Therefore, the
project site is 100 percent impermeable.32 As a result, the project proposes to install a bio-filtration
system in the driveway along the north project boundary to capture the stormwater that would be
generated on the site. All on-site stormwater would be captured and discharged into a 377’ long, 60” in
diameter underground corrugated storage pipe that would be installed in the drive aisle along the north
project boundary. Water in the corrugated pipe would be pumped to the bio-filter system along the north
project boundary where stormwater would be treated prior to its discharge into the public storm drain
system in Prospect Avenue. The capacity of the proposed stormwater collection and bio-filtration system
is based on the Los Angeles County 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event conditions. The installation of
and the regular maintenance of the required SWPPP and the proposed on-site bio-filtration system would
reduce storm water runoff pollutants generated from the project site during both project construction and
the life of the project to less than significant.
The project developer would also be required to have a SUSMP approved by City staff prior to the
issuance of a grading permit. The purpose of the SUSMP is to identify the BMPs that would be used on-
site to control project generated pollutants from entering the storm water runoff generated from the site.
The SUSMP includes measures that would be included in the project to maximize the use of pervious
materials throughout the site to allow storm water percolation and pollutant filtration with the use of a
retention/detention basin, storm water clarifier, and catch basins with BMPs.
The installation and regular maintenance of the State required SWPPP and SUSMP would reduce the
potential impacts from storm water runoff pollutants generated from the site during both project
construction and the ongoing operation of the project to less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would be required by SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce
particulate dust during any man-made condition. In this case, Rule 403 would require the project
developer to control fugitive dust during active operations, including grading and construction. Water is
primarily used for dust suppression during project grading and construction and would be provided by
the Golden State Water Company. The amount of water that would be required to control dust during
31 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/la_ms4/2015/SWRCB_wqo2015_0075.pdf
32 Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan, Tritech Engineering Associates, Inc., January 6, 2022, page 2.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 66
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
grading and construction would be minimal and would not significantly impact existing groundwater
supplies due to the relatively small size of the project, which is approximately 0.946 acres. Due to the
small size of the project site, the loss of approximately 0.946 acres of pervious area for stormwater
percolation and groundwater recharge would not significantly interfere and substantially impact or impede
sustainable groundwater management of the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin.
The project site is currently vacant and generates approximately 3.16 cubic feet per second (cfs) of
surface water runoff during a 50-year frequency storm event.33 Because the project site is entirely
impermeable (100%), most of the existing surface water flows north to the north property line and then
flows west to Prospect Avenue where it enters into a catch basin adjacent to the site. Once developed,
the project is estimated to generate approximately 3.16 cfs of runoff during a 50-year frequency storm
event, the same as the existing condition. The project proposes to capture the on-site runoff from a 50-
year storm in a 377’ long, 60” in diameter underground corrugated storage pipe that is proposed to be
installed in the drive aisle along the north project boundary. Stormwater in the underground corrugated
storage pipe would be pumped to the bio-filter system along the north project boundary and treated prior
to its discharge into the public storm drain system in Prospect Avenue the same as the existing condition.
Therefore, the project would not increase the rate of the surface water that would be discharged from the
site during a storm compared to the existing condition.
The project site receives its water supply from the Golden State Water Company and relies on three
sources for its water supply, including local groundwater from the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin,
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District and an emergency connection with the City of
Monterey Park.34 Based on the South San Gabriel Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan,
Golden State Water Company has reliable supplies to meet its retail customer demand in normal, single
dry years, and five consecutive dry year conditions through 2045.35 The Golden State Water Company
can provide potable water to the project as stated by the following, “Upon completion of satisfactory
financial arrangements under our rules and regulations on file with the California Public Utilities
Commission, the proposed water distribution system for the above referenced subdivision will be
adequate during normal operating conditions for the water system of this subdivision as provided in
Chapter 20.16 of Title 20 of the Los Angeles County (Water Code) and as shown on the plans and
specifications approved by the Department of Public Works. This includes meeting minimum domestic
flow requirements as provided by Section 20.16.070 and minimum fire flow and fire hydrant requirements
as provided by Section 20.16.060.”36
As discussed above, the project would increase the amount of stormwater that is generated from the
project site compared to the existing condition. Similar to the existing conditions the increased project
runoff would not percolate into the on-site soils. As discussed in Section “X.a” above, all on-site
stormwater would be captured and discharged into a 377’ long, 60” in diameter underground corrugated
storage pipe that would be installed in the drive aisle along the north project boundary and pumped to
the bio-filter system along the north project boundary where stormwater would be treated prior to its
discharge into the public storm drain system in Prospect Avenue. Therefore, the project would not
deplete or increase groundwater supplies. The project would have a less than significant impact on
groundwater supplies.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner,
which would:
33 Preliminary Hydrology Report, 7539 Garvey Ave., Rosemead, CA 91770, Tritech Engineering Associates, January 6, 2022, page 6.
34 South San Gabriel Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, July 16, 2021, page ES-2.
35 Ibid, page 5-5.
36 Golden State Water Company, Kyle Snay, Operations Engineer, letter dated October 14, 2021.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 67
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? Less Than Significant Impact. During
project construction the exposed soil on the site would be subject to erosion both on and off the site
during periods of rainfall. As discussed in Section “X.a” above, the project developer would be
required to prepare a SWPPP and SUSMP and implement the BMPs of both plans to reduce and
minimize soil erosion both on and off the site. The implementation of the applicable BMPs would
reduce and minimize the amount of siltation generated from the site. Once the project is completed
and operational all surface water runoff would be collected and discharged to an on-site bio-filtration
system in the driveway along the north project boundary to capture the stormwater that would be
generated on the site. All on-site stormwater would be captured and discharged into a 377’ long, 60”
in diameter underground corrugated storage pipe that would be installed in the drive aisle along the
north project boundary. Therefore, the proposed bio-filter system would generate minimal off-site
siltation once the project is completed.
The installation of and the regular maintenance of all construction BMPs and the proposed on-site
bio-filtration system in the driveway along the north project boundary in compliance with required
SWPPP and NPDES permits would reduce and minimize both on and off-site siltation from the project
site during both project construction and the life of the project to less than significant. The project
would not have significant erosion or siltation impacts either on or off the site.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off site? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section “X.b” above, the
project would maintain the same amount of runoff that is currently generated from the site and not
increase surface water runoff greater than the existing condition. Therefore, the project would not
have any significant on- or off-site flooding impacts.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Section “X.b” above, the project would not increase the
amount of storm water runoff that is currently generated from the site. The existing storm drain system
in Prospect Avenue that would serve the project and the downstream storm water collection system
has adequate capacity to serve the volume of stormwater from the project without significantly
impacting the capacity of the existing storm water drainage system since the project would not
increase the amount of stormwater generated from site compared to the existing condition. The
proposed biofilter system would The project would not have any significant impact to the existing
storm drain system that serves the site.
The project would be required to treat surface water runoff prior to its discharge to meet Regional
Water Quality Control Board water quality requirements and provide safeguards that surface water
runoff would not provide sources of polluted runoff. As discussed in Section “X.a” above, the project
would have to meet and comply with the MS4 permit requirements of the Los Angeles Water Board
to remove and prevent most project generated pollutants from being discharge from the site. The
installation and required routine maintenance of the proposed underground stormdrain collection and
bio-filter system in compliance with the MS4 permit would treat, reduce and filter most project runoff
pollutants before discharge to the public stormwater system. As a result, the project would not
significantly impact surface water quality.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would discharge
project generated surface water into the curb and gutter in Prospect Avenue adjacent to and west of
the site at the same location as currently discharged, which is upstream of an existing catch basin
along the east side of Prospect Avenue. The existing catch basin in Prospect Avenue would receive
the same volume of stormwater runoff as the existing condition. Therefore, the existing catch basin
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 68
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
has capacity to handle the stormwater flows from the project and the project would not significantly
impede or redirect flood water flows.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. No
Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is located in
Zone X37, which are areas of moderate or minimal hazard from flooding. In addition, Figure 5-6 of the
Public Safety Element of the General Plan shows that the project is located in FEMA flood hazard zone
“X” that is designated as areas of moderate or minimal hazard from flooding. The elevation of Alhambra
Wash, which is approximately 0.42 miles (2,230 feet) east of the project and in a 100-year flood zone is
the closest potential source of floodwaters to the project. The elevation of Alhambra Wash is
approximately 267feet above mean sea level and the elevation of the project site is 364 feet above mean
sea level and approximately 164 feet higher than the Alhambra Wash channel east of the site. Therefore,
the potential for flooding at the site from Alhambra Washi is minimal.
The project is more than twenty-one miles northeast from the Pacific Ocean and approximately 364 feet
above mean sea level. Due to the distance and the elevation of the project from the Pacific Ocean the
project would not be exposed to or impacted by a tsunami. The project site and the area immediately
surrounding the site are generally flat and there are no water bodies or water tanks adjacent to or in close
proximity to the site that would impact the project due to a seiche. Because the project would not be
impacted by a flood, tsunami or seiche, the project would not be impacted by a release of pollutants
associated with a flood, tsunami or seiche.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan. Less Than Significant Impact. The project developer prepared a
Preliminary Hydrology Study and Low Impact Development calculation report for the project and a copy
of the report is included in Appendix D of this MND. The City would require the project developer to
install and implement all proposed water quality collection and surface water runoff treatment measures
listed in the report, including a bio-filtration system along the north project boundary. As a result, the
project would not conflict with or obstruct water quality control measures mandated by the state.
The Golden State Water Company provides potable water to the project site presently and would serve
the proposed project. The Golden State Water Company has an adopted an Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP)38. The primary objective of the UWMP is to describe and evaluate sources of supply,
reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities. In this case,
the UWMP provides water supply planning to the year 2045 in five-year increments and identifies water
supplies needs to meet existing and future demands. The Golden State Water Company, South San
Gabriel relies on three sources for its water supply, including local groundwater from the San Gabriel
Valley Groundwater Basin, Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District and an emergency
connection with the City of Monterey Park.39 The future water demand for its service area is based on
land use type, including single-family, commercial, institutional, industrial, etc. The UWMP also analyzed
its future water supply based on the reliability of its existing sources of water including groundwater, water
districts, recycling, etc. The UWMP states that based on projected water supply and demands over the
next 20 years, the Golden State Water Company South San Gabriel Service Area has water supply
capabilities that would be sufficient to meet expected demands through 2045 under single-dry-year and
multiple-dry year conditions.40 Therefore, the project would not significantly impact future sources of
water supply. As stated in Section “X.b)”, Golden State Water can meet minimum domestic flow
37 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=rosemead%2C%20california#searchresultsanchor 38 South San Gabriel Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, July 16, 2021.
39 South San Gabriel Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, July 16, 2021, page ES-2.
40 Ibid, page 7-7.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 69
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
requirements as provided by Section 20.16.070 and minimum fire flow and fire hydrant requirements as
provided by Section 20.16.060.”41
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project proposes to develop an infill
site that is surrounded by established commercial use to the west, east and south and single-family
detached residences to the north and multi-family to the east. The 0.946 gross acre site is vacant. The
project site includes two separate parcels (APN Nos. 5286-022-009 and 5286-022-010) and would
combine the two parcels into a single parcel. The proposed project would not physically divide the
existing land uses that are adjacent to and surrounding the site.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than
Significant Impact. The land use and zoning designations for the project site is Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan. The project is requesting a specific plan amendment and zone change to Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan, Incentivized Mixed-Use (GSP-MU).
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan designates the project site as Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and allows
neighborhood commercial use development. Thus, the proposed mixed use project is not an allowed
use for the site based on the existing Garvey Avenue Specific Plan land use designation. Therefore, the
project applicant is requesting a specific plan amendment to change the land use designation to Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-Use (GSP-MU).
The requested Garvey Avenue Specific Plan amendment would allow the proposed development of 75
residential units and 6,346 square feet of nonresidential use on the project. The requested GSP-MU land
use designation is allowed for other parcels within the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, including the area
adjacent to and west of Prospect Avenue as shown in Figure 5. As shown, the existing land uses adjacent
to the area that is designated for GSP-MU land use includes the same types of land uses that surround
the proposed project site, which includes single-family detached and commercial development. None of
the existing land uses that are adjacent to and surrounding the project site are unique to the site and
would have any significant land use impacts greater than or different from the impacts associated with
the development of mixed uses within other areas of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan that are designated
GSP-MU.
As discussed in Section “I.d)” the project meets all of the applicable GSP-MU development standards of
Table 3.4 of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, including minimum lot size, minimum lot width, mixed-use
land use split, building height and form, building relationship to the street, specific plan standards, ground
floor building design, setbacks for light, air and privacy, pedestrian-friendly auto circulation and access,
and parking.
Provision of Community Benefits
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan has provisions for Community Benefit Incentives. Community Benefit
Incentives are provided to allow developer and property owners to increase the development potential if
community benefits are identified as part of the development application, constructed as part of the
project development, and operated in perpetuity. Restrictions and/or covenants are required to be
41 Golden State Water Company, Kyle Snay, Operations Engineer, letter dated October 14, 2021
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 70
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
recorded on the property to ensure the benefits or amenities provided to earn the Community Benefit
Incentive are maintained in perpetuity.42
The Garvey Avenue Community Benefit Program is applicable to all parcels within the Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan corridor. The Garvey Avenue Community Benefit Program is based on a point system.
Each community benefit type is assigned a number of Community Benefit points. A project may earn
points from a single or multiple categories, depending on the project applicant’s preference. The number
of Community Benefit points earned is then translated into the increased density or FAR. The increase
varies by zone and land use type.43
The project includes five Community Benefit Incentives with a total of 131 earned points as shown in
Table 12. As shown, the 131 earned points allows the project a 3.0 FAR and a density of up to 80
dwelling units/acre compared to a 1.6 FAR and 25 dwelling units/acre, respectively. The project proposes
a FAR of 2.7 and a density of 75 du/acre and within the floor area ratio and density allowed for the site
with the proposed Community Benefit Incentives.
Table 12
Project Community Benefit Points
Type of Benefit Basis for Calculating
Points
Maximum
Points*
Earned
Points
FAR
Earned
Density
Earned
Lot Consolidation 2 lots consolidated into 1
parcel 35 35
Family Friendly
Development
More than 10% of housing
units as three bedroom or
larger units.
1 point for each 15 sq.
ft./unit of common area
open space above the
required minimum per the
Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan, providing the common
area open space contains at
least two of the following: tot
lot play equipment (swings,
slide, climbing structure),
community garden, or
library.
50
30
20
Nonresidential
component of
Mixed-use
development
sites
In order to provide for
significant opportunities for
national and regional retail
tenants, a bonus shall be
granted if the nonresidential
component of a mixed-use
site provides for tenant
space with an average size
of 2,000 s.f. or more
(minimum size of 800 s.f. for
each tenant space), then the
project will receive a 5%
increase in residential to
20 20
42 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, February 2018, page 3-19.
43 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, February 2018, page 3-29.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 71
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
make the split 70%
residential to 30%
commercial.
Public Parking 2 Points: For every 1
standard sized parking
space marked for public use
and permanently available
for public use, provided the
project meets the minimum
number of required public
and private spaces, per this
Specific Plan or the City of
Rosemead
50 6 – 3 stalls
Sustainable
Design
40 Points: If 50% or more of
total building roof is an
accessible, operational eco
roof.
30 Points: LEEDTM
Platinum, CALGreen Tier 2,
or equivalent (third-party
certification required)
20 Points: LEEDTM Gold,
CALGREEN Tier 1, or
equivalent (third-party
certification required)
The increased density or
intensity will be granted to
the qualifying building not
the entire development or
site area.
The project will be
conditioned to ensure
compliance and
construction in accordance
with LEED Platinum, LEED
Gold, CALGreen Tier 2, or
CALGreen Tier 1.
70
20 –
CALGreen
Tier 1
Total
Points
131 3 80 du/acre
• Maximum points allowed by Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
The project meets the development standards for the GSP-MU zone, with the exception of the mixed-
use land use split. Based on Table 3.4 of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, a floor-area land use mix of
65% residential use and 35% nonresidential use is allowed for mixed-use development. However,
applicants can deviate from this standard by proposing to incorporate community benefit amenities as
depicted in Table 3.5 of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. Specifically, the community benefit amenity
that an applicant has to incorporate into its project to obtain a deviated floor-area land use mix is shown
below.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 72
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Type of Benefit
Provided for the
Community Benefit
Incentive
Maximum
Points
Basis for Calculating Points
Nonresidential
Component of Mixed-
Use Development
Sites
20 In order to provide for significant opportunities for national
and regional retail tenants, a bonus shall be granted if the
nonresidential component of a mixed-use site provides for
tenant space with an average size of 2,000 s.f. or more
(minimum size of 800 s.f. for each tenant space), then the
project will receive a 5% increase in residential to make the
split 70% residential to 30% commercial.
The project applicant proposes to utilize the community benefit incentive as shown above. Thus, the
Rosemead Planning Division is granting the project applicant an increase of up to 5% for the proposed
residential use of the project. The applicant is proposing a floor-area land use mix of 68% residential and
32% nonresidential, which is allowed and in compliance with the land use mix allowed by the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan utilizing the community benefit amenity.
Zoning
The project site is zoned Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP). The purpose of the Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan (GSP) zoning district is to facilitate and support a vibrant neighborhood commercial district
accommodating a diverse range of retail, service, and office businesses, with a focus on businesses that
support the needs of the local community. The GSP zoning area is intended to encourage the
development of attractive retail areas where people can walk for dining, groceries, shopping, limited
personal services, community and social services, and social activities and gatherings. Uses will have
active retail storefronts with glass windows, open storefronts, and setbacks for outdoor dining, thus,
offering pedestrians a varied and interesting experience.44
The GSP zone for the site allows a maximum FAR of 0.75 without the Provision of Community Benefits
and 1.0 with the Provision of Community Benefits. Therefore, the 0.946 gross acres (41,235 square feet)
site could be developed with up to 30,926 square feet of commercial, public, and open space use without
the Provision of Community Benefits and 41,235 square feet of commercial, public and open space use
with the Provision of Community Benefits.
The proposed mixed use project is not an allowed use with the existing GSP zone. Therefore, the project
applicant is requesting a zone change to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-Use (GSP-
MU) to allow the mixed-use development for the site. The requested GSP-MU zoning allows the
development of mixed-use including residential, commercial, public and open space land uses. As shown
in Table 3.2 of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, the GSP-MU zoning allows a maximum of 25 dwelling
units per acre without the Provision of Community Benefits and a maximum of 80 dwelling units per acre
with the Provision of Community Benefits and a mixed-use maximum FAR of 1.6 and 0.75 commercial
use without the Provision of Community Benefits and a mixed-use maximum of 3.0 and 1.0 commercial
with the Provision of Community Benefits.
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Amendment
The project also includes an amendment to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan permitting sit-down
restaurants with a minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an Administrative Use Permit for
44 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, page 3-4.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 73
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
beer/wine sales in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) and Garvey Avenue Specific Plan,
Incentivized Mixed -Use (GSP-MU) zones. This proposed Amendment would continue to require a
Conditional Use Permit for all other on-site alcohol sales for sit-down restaurants less than 6,000 square
feet.
The project is located in the GSP-MU zone and proposes 6,346 square feet of nonresidential use. The
current Garvey Avenue Specific Plan development standards allows the development of a regional or
national chain sit-down restaurant with alcohol sales and a minimum of 6,000 square feet to operate
without a CUP in the GSP and GSP-MU zones. The current Garvey Avenue Specific Plan development
standards would allow one regional or national chain sit-down restaurant with alcohol sales in the project’s
proposed 6,346 square feet of nonresidential space. The Amendment would allow multiple sit-down
restaurants with beer/wine sales with an AUP in the 6,346 square feet of nonresidential space rather than
one sit-down restaurant. The proposed Amendment would continue to require all sit-down restaurants
to meet the requirements of RMC 17.30.040 for alcohol beverage sales and RMC 17.04.050 for the
definition of a sit-down restaurant and require a Conditional Use Permit for all other on-site alcohol sales
for sit-down restaurants less than 6,000 square feet.
The proposed Amendment would assist the business community within the boundary of the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan some relief from economic hardships that they are facing with the COVID-19
pandemic. The change from 6,000 square feet of minimum space to 1,000 square feet of minimum space
for sit-down restaurants with beer/wine sales would be consistent with the development standards for sit-
down restaurants with beer/wine sales in the FCMU.
If approved, the proposed Amendment would assist the proposed Prospect Villa project the opportunity
to attract more sit-down restaurants with beer/wine sales within its nonresidential space. The proposed
Amendment would not have any significant land use impacts since sit-down restaurants with beer/wine
sales are already allowed in the GSP and GSP-MU zones.
The project is not anticipated to have any significant land use or zoning impacts.
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state? No Impact. The State Mining and Geology Board classify land in
California on the availability of mineral resources. There are four Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ)
designations in California for the classification of sand, gravel, and crushed rock resources (MRZ-1, MRZ-
2, MRZ-3, MRZ-4). According to the Rosemead General Plan Update the project site is within the MRZ-
4.45 The MRZ-4 classification states these are “Areas where available information is inadequate for
assignment to any other MRZ zone”.46 As Rosemead is completely urbanized and the State has not
identified any significant recoverable mineral resources within the City, no mineral extraction activities
are permitted within the City limits. There are no mining activities on the site or any of the properties
surrounding and adjacent to the site. The project would not have an impact to mineral resources of value
to the region or residents of the state.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. As discussed above in
Section “XII.a” above, the project site is not located within an area of known mineral deposits. In addition,
the geotechnical report that was prepared for the project site did not identify any mineral deposits in any
of the five on-site soil borings. The project would not result in the loss of and not impact any locally
important mineral resources.
45 Rosemead General Plan, Figure 4-2 Mineral Resources Map.
46 Ibid.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 74
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated. A noise report47 was prepared for the project and is included in Appendix E of this MND.
The site is vacant and as a result there is no noise generated from the site. Noise sources in the
immediate project area impacting the project site includes traffic on Garvey Avenue adjacent to and south
of the site, traffic on Prospect Avenue adjacent to and west of the site, the daily activities of the
commercial uses west, south and east of the site and typical daily noise associated with the single-family
detached residences north of the site. The residences adjacent to and north of the site do not generate
noise levels that impact the site due to the low intensity of noise that is typically generated by residential
development.
Noise Compatibility Guidelines
The City of Rosemead takes into account noise compatibility standards when evaluating land use
development projects. A proposed land use must be compatible with the ambient noise environment,
particularly with noise sources that the City does not have direct control such as motor vehicles on public
streets and roads, aircraft, and trains. Since the City cannot regulate the noise levels from the sources,
the City exercises its land use decision authority to ensure that noise/land use incompatibility is
minimized.
The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound pressure levels. Although decibels are most commonly
associated with sound, "dB" is a generic descriptor that is equal to ten times the logarithmic ratio of any
physical parameter versus some reference quantity. For sound, the reference level is the faintest sound
detectable by a young person with good auditory acuity.
Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire auditory spectrum,
human response is factored into sound descriptions by weighting sounds within the range of maximum
human sensitivity more heavily in a process called “A weighting,” written as dB(A). Any further reference
to decibels written as "dB" should be understood to be A weighted.
Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal
to the energy content of the time varying period (called LEQ), or alternately, as a statistical description of
the sound pressure level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. Finally,
because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at
night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time
noise levels in a 24 hour noise descriptor called the Ldn (day-night) or the Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL).
The City of Rosemead considers noise exposures for residential/transient lodging use to be “normally
acceptable” if the maximum exterior noise level is 60 dBA CNEL or less. Exterior residential noise levels
of up to 70 dBA CNEL are allowed if a noise analysis is conducted to identify possible noise reduction
measures. Noise levels above 70 dBA CNEL are considered normally unacceptable, except in unusual
circumstances for residential use. These standards apply to outdoor recreational uses such as
backyards, patios and balconies.
An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR,
Title 24, Part 6, Section T25-28) for multiple family dwellings, hotel and motel rooms. In 1988, the State
47 Noise Impact Analysis, Prospect Villa Mixed Use Project, Giroux & Associates, October 12, 2021.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 75
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Building Standards Commission expanded that standard to include all habitable rooms in residential use,
included single-family dwelling units. Since normal noise attenuation within residential structures with
closed windows is 25-30A dB, an exterior noise exposure of 70-75 dBA CNEL allows the interior standard
to be met without any specialized structural attenuation (dual paned windows, etc.), but with closed
windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning in order to maintain a comfortable living
environment.
Noise Standards
For noise generated on one property affecting an adjacent use, the City of Rosemead limits the amount
of noise that can cross the boundary between the two uses. There are residential uses adjacent to and
north of the site. The noise standards described below must be met at the residential units north of the
site.
For regulated on-site sources of noise generation, the Rosemead noise ordinance prescribes limits that
are considered an acceptable noise exposure for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources.
The L50 metric used in the Rosemead noise ordinance is the level exceeded for 50% of the measurement
period of thirty minutes in an hour. One-half of all readings may exceed this average standard with larger
excursions from the average allowed for progressively shorter periods. The larger the deviation, the
shorter the allowed duration up to a never-to-exceed 20 dB increase above the 50th percentile standard.
Nighttime noise levels limits are reduced by 5 dB to reflect the increased sensitivity to noise occurring
during that time period.
The City’s L50 noise standard for residential use is 60 dB during the day (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.), and 45 dB
at night (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.). For commercial use the L50 standard is 65 dB during the day (7 a.m. – 10
p.m.), and 60 dB at night (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.). These noise standards for residential and commercial uses
are shown in Table 13. Should the ambient noise level exceed any of the noise standards, the standards
shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level.
Table 13
Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits
(Exterior Noise Level not to be Exceeded)
Residential Use Commercial Use
Maximum Allowable
Duration of
Exceedance
7 AM to 10 PM
(Daytime)
10 PM to 7 AM
(Nighttime)
7 AM to 10 PM
(Daytime)
10 PM to 7 AM
(Nighttime)
30 minutes/Hour (L50) 60 dB 45 dB 65 dB 60 dB
15 minutes/Hour (L25) 65 dB 50 dB 70 dB 65 dB
5 minutes/Hour (L8) 70 dB 55 dB 75 dB 70 dB
1 minute/Hour (L1) 75 dB 60 dB 80 dB 75 dB
Never (Lmax) 80 dB 65 dB 85 dB 80 dB
Source: Municipal Code Section 8.36.060
Rosemead Municipal Code 8.36.030(A)(3) restricts hours of construction to hours of lesser noise
sensitivity with heavy equipment to not operate from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. during the week and on Saturdays,
and not exceed 65 dBA at any residential property line. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or
Federal Holidays.
Baseline Noise Levels
Short-term (15-minute) baseline noise measurements were taken on Wednesday, September 29, 2021
at approximately 1:15 pm to 1:45 pm at two locations to document the existing noise levels due to
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 76
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
activities in the immediate project vicinity. The existing noise levels are shown in Table 14. The
measured noise levels provide a basis to calculate the noise levels that project residents would be
exposed to with the existing noise generating activities in the area. The location of the noise
measurements are shown in Figure 17.
Table 14
Short-Term Measured Noise Levels (dBA)
Site No. Location Leq Lmax Lmin
1 50-feet to the centerline of Prospect Avenue 60 66 49
2 60 feet to the centerline of Garvey Avenue 64 67 56
Figure 17
Noise Measurement Locations
Based on previous noise monitoring experience, 24-hour weighted CNELs can be reasonably estimated
from mid-day noise measurements. Thus, CNELs are approximately equal to Leq plus 2-3 dBA (Caltrans
Technical Noise Supplement, 2009). This indicates a CNEL along the Prospect Avenue project frontage
of approximately 63 dBA CNEL and 67 dBA CNEL along the Garvey Avenue project frontage.
The City of Rosemead considers CNELS of up to 70 dBA to be conditionally acceptable for residential
use with the requirement of a noise analysis. Noise levels of up to 75 dB CNEL are considered to be
conditionally acceptable for commercial use. However, unless commercial projects include noise-
sensitive uses such as outdoor dining, exterior noise exposure is generally not considered a facility siting
constraint.
Meter 1
Meter 2
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 77
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Noise impacts are considered significant if they result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity
of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies.
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people living or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts may be significant if they create either a substantial permanent noise level increase or a
temporary noise level increase. The term "substantial" is not quantified in CEQA guidelines. In most
environmental analyses, "substantial" means a level that is clearly perceptible to humans. In practice,
this is at least a +3 dB increase. Some agencies, such as Caltrans, require substantial increases to be
+10 dB or more if noise standards are not exceeded by the increase. For purposes of this analysis, a
+3 dB increase is considered a substantial increase. The following noise impacts due to project-related
traffic would be considered significant:
1. If construction activities were to audibly intrude into adjacent sensitive uses.
2. If project traffic noise were to cause an increase by a perceptible amount (+3 dB CNEL) or expose
receivers to levels exceeding city compatibility noise standards.
3. If future build-out noise levels were to expose sensitive receivers to levels exceeding compatibility
standards of 65 dB CNEL exterior at any outdoor uses or 45 dB CNEL interior noise levels in any
habitable space.
Sensitive Receptors
The closest noise sensitive land uses to the project site are the residential units adjacent to and north of
the site. There are also residences northwest and south of the site, south of Garvey Avenue.
Temporary Noise Impacts
The existing noise levels on the site and the noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the site would
increase temporarily during project construction. Short-term construction noise would be generated
during grading and the construction of the proposed site improvements. Noise would also be generated
by construction workers commuting to the site, the delivery of materials and supplies to the site and the
operation of on-site construction equipment, etc.
Temporary construction noise impacts vary markedly due to the noise level range of the various types of
construction equipment, its activity level and the distance from the equipment to the closest noise
sensitive land use. Short-term construction noise impacts typically occur in discrete phases dominated
by earth-moving equipment that would be used for site demolition and grading operations to construction
and paving equipment that generates less noise than the heavier demolition and earth-moving
equipment.
In 2006, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the Roadway Construction Noise Model
that includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emissions levels. In
addition, the database provides an acoustical usage factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of
construction equipment is operating at full power during a construction phase. The usage factor is a key
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 78
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
input variable that is used to calculate the average Leq (Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level)
noise levels.
Table 15 shows the anticipated construction fleet required to construct the project. The table is organized
by construction activity and lists the equipment that is associated with each activity. Table 15 also shows
the noise level for each individual piece of equipment at a reference 50-foot distance.
Table 15
Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Phase Name Equipment Usage
Factor1
Measured Noise
@ 50 feet (dBA)
Cumulative
Noise
@ 50 feet (dBA)
Grading
Dozer 40% 82 78
Grader 40% 85 81
Loader/Backhoe 37% 78 74
Building
Construction
Forklift 20% 75 68
Loader/Backhoe 37% 78 74
Crane 16% 81 73
Welder 46% 74 71
Paving
Paver 50% 77 74
Paving Equip 40% 76 72
Roller 38% 80 76
Loader/Backhoe 37% 78 74
Source: FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006
1. Estimates the fraction of time each piece of equipment is operating at full power during a construction operation
As shown in Table 15, typical hourly average construction generated noise levels would average
approximately 68 dBA to 81 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the project site. The construction
noise levels would be reduced at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per the doubling of the distance between
the noise source and a receptor. Shielding by existing buildings and/or terrain often results in lower
construction noise levels at distant receptors. The potential for project construction-related noise levels
to impact adjacent and nearby residential receptors would depend on the location and proximity of the
on-site construction activities to these off-site receptors.
Table 16 shows the adjusted maximal noise levels from the operation of on-site construction equipment
at 50 feet to the closest noise sensitive receptors that are approximately 10 feet from the common
property line of the project site. The project proposes to construct a six-foot tall decorative masonry wall
along both the north and east project boundaries. The noise levels in Table 16 take into account a 4
dBA reduction in noise levels associated with the construction of the six-foot tall decorative masonry
walls.
Table 16
Construction Noise Exposure at Adjoining Sensitive Noise Receptor (dBA Leq)
Phase Equipment
Noise Levels
at Residences
to the North
Grading
Dozer 88
Grader 79
Loader/Backhoe 70
Building
Construction
Forklift 66
Loader/Backhoe 72
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 79
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Crane 71
Welder 69
Paving
Paver 84
Paving Equip 68
Roller 72
Loader/Backhoe 70
As shown in Table 16, only the operation of the dozer during project grading would exceed the City of
Rosemead adopted 85 dBA Leq significance threshold if the equipment is operated directly adjacent to
the shared property line with the residents adjacent to and north of the site. None of the other construction
activities would exceed the adopted 85 dBA Leq significance threshold. Some of the residents north of
the project could experience noise nuisance during construction activity. However, the construction noise
levels would be temporary and limited to the duration of the construction at any one location within the
site. The temporary noise impacts would cease once each component of construction is completed. The
project is proposed to be constructed in a single phase so once construction is completed the construction
noise levels would cease.
Construction would be restricted to the hours of construction as allowed by Rosemead Municipal Code
8.36.030(A)(3) that restricts hours of construction to hours of lesser noise sensitivity with heavy
equipment to not operate from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. during the week and on Saturdays, and not exceed 65
dBA at any residential property line. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or Federal Holidays.
As shown in Table 14 the existing ambient noise level on the site at the two noise measurement locations
are 66 and 67 dBA and greater than the city standard of 65 dBA. Therefore, the existing noise levels on
the project site due to traffic along the project frontage at Prospect Avenue and Garvey Avenue exceed
the city daytime noise standard of 65 dBA.
Rosemead Municipal Code 8.36.060(B)(1) restricts interior noise levels of residential receptor properties
to 45 dBA. As stated earlier, the noise levels in Table 16 take into account the proposed six-foot tall
masonary decorative wall along the north project boundary that would attenuate and reduce the exterior
noise levels to the residential units adjacent to and north of the site by approximately 4 dBA. Furthermore,
typical residential construction materials and methods reduce exterior noise levels to interior noise levels
by approximately 20-25 dBA. In this case, when taking the existing six-foot wall along the north project
boundary and typical residential construction materials and methods into account, the interior noise levels
of the residential units adjacent to and north of the project site would not exceed interior noise levels of
45 dBA as restricted by Rosemead Municipal Code 8.36.060(B)(1). Therefore, although off-site
construction noise levels are calculated not to exceed 85 dBA except for the operation of dozers during
project grading, interior noise levels would not exceed 45 dBA in compliance with Rosemead Municipal
Code 8.36.060(B)(1).
In order to minimize construction noise levels to the residential units adjacent to and north of the site the
following noise measures are recommended:
Mitigation Measure No. 8 All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and other
suitable noise attenuation devices (e.g., engine shields).
Mitigation Measure No. 9 Grading and construction contractors shall use rubber-tired equipment
rather than track equipment, to the maximum extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure No. 10 If feasible, electric hook-ups shall be provided to avoid the use of
generators. If electric service is determined to be infeasible for the site, only
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 80
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
whisper-quiet generators shall be used (i.e., inverter generators capable of
providing variable load.
Mitigation Measure No. 11 Electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel
equipment shall be used, where feasible.
Mitigation Measure No. 12 Generators and stationary construction equipment shall be staged and
located as far from the adjacent residential structures as feasible.
Mitigation Measure No. 13 Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor
vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for
more than 5 minutes.
Mitigation Measure No. 14 A sign shall be posted in a readily visible location at the project site that
indicates the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as
provide a telephone number where residents can enquire about the
construction process and register complaints to an assigned construction
noise disturbance coordinator.
Mitigation Measure No. 15 Dozers shall not operate within 25 feet of the north property line.
Motor Vehicle Noise Impacts
Off-Site Project-Related Vehicular Noise Impacts
Traffic counts for Garvey Avenue are available from the traffic impact analysis that was prepared for the
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR48. The closest traffic counts to the project site are at the intersection
of Jackson Avenue and Garvey Avenue, which is one block east of the proposed project. Therefore, the
traffic noise impacts to the project from off-site traffic are based on traffic counts at the intersection of
Garvey Avenue and Jackson Avenue. The calculated noise levels on Garvey Avenue in close proximity
to the project site are shown in Table 17. The on-site noise levels were calculated at a distance of 50-
feet from the centerline of Garvey Avenue. The analysis is conservative as it overlays all 657 project
generated traffic trips in east and west directions equally along Garvey Avenue since trip distribution
profiles for the site in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan traffic impact analysis were not available.
Table 17
Traffic and Associated Noise Levels for Existing and Future Time Frames
Time Frame
Daily Number of
Vehicles*
Estimated Noise Level (dBA
CNEL)
Garvey East of
Site
Garvey West of
Site
Garvey East of
Site
Garvey West of
Site
Existing No Project 20,100 19,130 68.2 68.0
Existing With Project 20,757 20,757 68.3 68.3
Future No Project 19,890 18,940 68.2 67.9
Future With Project 20,547 19,597 68.3 68.1
Future With Specific Plan
Buildout 29,450 27,490 69.9 69.6
*Estimated to be 10 x PM peak hourly ADT
48 Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead, CA, May 26, 2016.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 81
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
The proposed project in either the opening year or future time frames would not significant increase the
traffic noise level on the project site or the immediate project vicinity. As shown in Table 18, the project
is calculated to have a maximum noise level increase of approximately of +0.3 dBA and a net noise level
of -1.6 dBA compared to the estimated traffic noise levels along Garvey Avenue in the project vicinity by
the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan traffic impact analysis. As shown in Table 18, the project traffic noise
level increase by the project compared to the noise levels that would be generated based on the
development allowed for the site by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan are less than significant.
Table 18
Traffic Noise Impact Comparison
Scenario Evaluated Garvey Avenue East
of Project Site
Garvey Avenue West
of Project Site
Existing With Project vs Existing No Project +0.1 dBA +0.3 dBA
Future With Project vs Future No Project +0.1 dBA +0.2 dBA
Future With Project vs Future With Specific Plan -1.6 dBA -1.5 dBA
Site Operational Noise
The project driveway is located at the northwest corner of the site at Prospect Avenue. The drive aisle
is approximately 33-feet wide. After entering the drive aisle motor vehicles turn right into one of two
driveways to enter the parking areas within the building.
Based on the AM and PM traffic volumes at the project driveway in the traffic report, the on-site noise
levels during the AM and PM peak hours at the project driveway is estimated to be 46.3 dBA Leq. The
proposed six-foot tall decorative masonry wall along the north project boundary would provide
approximately -4 dBA of noise attenuation for a net noise level to the residents adjacent to and north of
the project is 42.3 dBA Leq.
The City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance limits noise from a private property adjacent to a residential use
to not exceed 60 dBA Leq at the property line. Therefore, the peak hour project traffic would not exceed
the City’s noise standard. Additionally, the measured noise level on Prospect Avenue adjacent to the
site was 60 dBA Leq. Therefore, the project traffic noise level would not be audible over the existing
background traffic noise level on Prospect Avenue adjacent to the site. As a result, the project generated
noise level impacts to the existing land uses adjacent to the project would be less than significant.
The mechanical equipment that is proposed for the project, including air conditioners, fans, etc. is
proposed for the roof of the building and shielded from adjacent land uses by a 5-foot parapet screen.
The mechanical equipment would generate noise levels that are typically generated by the type of
equipment that would be used for a mixed-use project and would be required to comply with all applicable
regulatory requirements in terms of noise. The mechanical equipment for the project would be screened
by a proposed 5-foot high parapet screen and the noise levels from the operation of the rooftop
mechanical equipment would not significantly impact on-site residents or existing residents adjacent to
the project site. Therefore, the noise impacts by the operation of on-site mechanical equipment would
be less than significant.
On-Site Traffic Noise
Along the Garvey Avenue frontage, the first story is proposed for commercial use. Residential units are
proposed for the second through seventh floors and recessed and have a greater setback distance to
the traffic on both Garvey Avenue and Prospect Avenue. The minimum project setback at the ground
level of the project is 55-feet from the centerline of Garvey Avenue. Based on the measured noise levels
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 82
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
on Garvey Avenue, the estimated traffic noise level along the project frontage on Garvey Avenue would
be less than 70 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline with the project. It is not anticipated that
residential balconies would observe exterior traffic noise levels of above 70 dBA CNEL. The recreational
space is comprised of common open space along the northern perimeter, the courtyards above the
parking levels, the lounge, and balconies would have noise levels less than 70 dBA CNEL.
Based on the above analysis the project would not have any significant temporary (construction) or
permanent (operational) noise level impacts.
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. There are residential homes adjacent to and north of the
project and commercial uses to the east, west of Prospect Avenue and south of Garvey Avenue. The
site is subject to occasional ground borne vibration due to heavy trucks that travel on Garvey Avenue
and Prospect Avenue adjacent to and south and west of the site, respectively. Any vibration levels on
the site from the occasional passing of heavy trucks on Garvey Avenue and Prospect Avenue are short-
term in duration. Since the project site is vacant existing vibrations at the site do not impact any existing
on-site uses.
Construction Activity Vibration
Construction activities generate ground-borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over unpaved
surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement, such as grading. The effects of ground-borne vibration
include discernable movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or
hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. Vibration related problems generally occur due to resonances
in the structural components of a building because structures amplify groundborne vibration. Within the
“soft” sedimentary surfaces of much of Southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped.
Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors49
Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures.
Vibration thresholds have been adopted for major public works construction projects, but these relate
mostly to structural protection (cracking foundations or stucco) rather than for human annoyance. A
vibration descriptor commonly used to determine structural damage is the peak particle velocity (ppv)
and defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration signal, usually
measured in in/sec. The range of vibration levels is shown in Table 19.
Table 19
Human Response to Transient Vibration
Average Human Response ppv (in/sec)
Severe 2.00
Strongly perceptible 0.90
Distinctly perceptible 0.24
Barely perceptible 0.03
Source: Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2013.
Over the years, numerous vibration criteria and standards have been suggested by researchers,
organizations, and governmental agencies. As shown in Table 20, according to Caltrans and the FTA,
the threshold for structural vibration damage for modern structures is 0.5 in/sec for intermittent sources,
which include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile
drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. Older residential structures have a 0.3 in/sec threshold. To
be conservative, the damage threshold of 0.3 in/sec for older residential structures was used in this
49 Federal Transit Administration 2006.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 83
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
vibration analysis to determine potential vibration impacts to adjacent buildings. Below this level there is
virtually no risk of building damage.
Table 20
FTA and Caltrans Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria
Building Type PPV (in/sec)
FTA Criteria
Reinforced concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5
Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12
Caltrans Criteria
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 0.5
New residential structures 0.5
Older residential structures 0.3
Historic old buildings 0.25
Fragile Buildings 0.1
Extremely fragile ruins, ancient monuments 0.08
The calculated vibration levels that would be generated by the operation of the various types of
construction equipment that are anticipated to operate on the site are shown below in Table 21.
Table 21
Estimated Vibration Levels During Project Construction
Equipment
PPV
at 25 ft
(in/sec)
PPV
at 40 ft
(in/sec)
PPV
at 50 ft
(in/sec)
PPV
at 60 ft
(in/sec)
PPV
at 75 ft
(in/sec)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.044 0.031 0.024 0.017
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.037 0.027 0.020 0.015
Jackhammer 0.035 0.017 0.012 0.009 0.007
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
The calculation to determine PPV at a given distance is:
PPV distance = PPVref*(25/D)^1.5
Where:
PPVdistance = the peak particle velocity in inches/second of the equipment adjusted for distance,
PPVref = the reference vibration level in inches/second at 25 feet, and
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.
The closest residence adjacent to the project boundary is 10 feet from the shared north property line. As
shown in Table 21, the calculated vibration levels generated by construction equipment such as a large
bulldozer would be slightly above levels that could create structural damage of older residential structures
(i.e., 0.3 in/sec) if a bulldozer were to operate at the north property line. Large bulldozers would not likely
operate directly at the shared property line to limit potential damage to the wall, therefore, effects of
vibration such as rattling windows is not anticipated to occur at the existing structures adjacent to the
project site. In the event that such equipment may pass directly along the property line of adjacent
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 84
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
residences, vibration effects would only slightly exceed the “barely perceptible” response range, and for
a very limited time, which would not be considered substantial.
Although grading vibrations to the residents adjacent to and north of the project are not anticipated to
have any significant vibration impacts to the residents, the implementation of Mitigation Measure No. 15
is recommended to reduce potential vibration impacts to less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no
private airstrips or public airports in the project vicinity or the City of Rosemead. The closest airport to
the project is El Monte Airport, which is approximately 5 miles northeast of the project. Operations at El
Monte Airport would not expose project employees, customers or residents to excessive noise levels.
The project would not be impacted by noise levels at El Monte Airport due to the distance of the airport
from the project.
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned 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)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes 6,346 square feet of
nonresidential use on the first floor and 75 residential units on the first through seventh floors. Of the 75
residential units, 30 are live-work units and 45 are apartments. The 30 live-work units are proposed for
the first four floors and the 45 apartments are proposed for the fifth through seventh floors. The project
includes 17 two-bedroom live-work units, 34 two-bedroom apartments, 4 two-bedroom loft live-work units,
9 three-bedroom live-work units, 10 three-bedroom apartments and 1 four-bedroom apartment.
The project is estimated to generate approximately 281 residents based on 3.74 persons per household
and the average number of people for all household types in the City of Rosemead.50 It is anticipated
that the proposed live-works and apartments would generate less than 3.74 persons per the average
household in Rosemead, which includes single-family detached units. Therefore, the number of residents
that would be generated by the project is anticipated to be less than 281 people. It is anticipated that
many of the future project residents are existing Rosemead residents and currently live in Rosemead.
Existing Rosemead residents that move to and relocate from their existing residence in Rosemead to the
project would not increase the city’s population. For those future project residents that currently live
outside Rosemead and would move to the site, the city’s population is not anticipated to increase
significantly due to the project.
The project would incrementally increase the city’s population. However, it is not anticipated the project
would induce a substantial unplanned population growth in Rosemead either directly or indirectly since it
is anticipated that some of the future project residents are current city residents and the number of future
residents that move to Rosemead from outside the city would be minimal. Therefore, the project is not
anticipated to significantly increase the city’s population.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project site is vacant and would not displace any
existing residential units or residents. As a result, no existing residents would have to find replacement
housing. The project would not have an impact to any existing residents.
50
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dof.ca.gov%2FForecasting%2FDemographics%2FEstimates
%2FE-5%2Fdocuments%2FE-5_2021_InternetVersion.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK, January 1, 2021.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 85
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
i. Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services are provided by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department. The construction of the proposed mixed-use building would be
required to meet all applicable 2019 California Building and Fire Codes would minimize the need for
fire protection service calls at the site by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The project would
not have any significant impacts to the Los Angeles County Fire Department.51
ii. Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection services are provided by the
Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. The Temple Sheriff’s Station located at 8838 Las Tunas
Drive serves the project site. Compared to the existing vacant site condition, the project would
increase calls for police protection. While the project would incrementally increase police service
calls, the project is not anticipated to significantly impact the Los Angeles County Sheriff
Department.52
iii. Schools? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located in the Garvey School District and
serves students from pre-K to 8th grade. The project would generate students to schools in the Garvey
School District that include Ralph Waldo Emerson Elementary School located at 7544 Emerson Place
and Richard Garvey Intermediate School located at 2720 Jackson Avenue. The project is in the
Alhambra Unified School District and students grades 9-12 would attend San Gabriel High School
located at 801 S. Ramona Street in San Gabriel. The Alhambra Unified School District has capacity
to serve the students generated by the project.53
Both school districts collect a development fee for residential and commercial development. The
student impact fee is used by schools to provide additional classrooms to accommodate the students
generated by residential and commercial/industrial development projects. The project developer
would be required to pay the State mandated student impact fee to each District before building
permits would be issued for construction. Payment of the required development fee would reduce
impact of the students generated by the project to the Garvey School District and Alhambra Unified
School District to less than significant.
iv. Parks? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest City of Rosemead public park to the project is
Garvey Park that is located at 3233 Kelburn Avenue and approximately 0.42 miles northeast of the
project. Garvey Park includes a water park, baseball fields, tennis courts, playground, an open field,
bar-b-ques, picnic tables, gym, etc.
The project is required by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan to provide 11,250 square feet of common
open space, 300 square feet of additional common open space for the Community Benefit credit and
2,062 square feet for the commercial space. The project proposes 6,245 square feet more common
open space than required by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
The project is also required by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan to provide 5,625 square feet of
private open space and proposes 9,633 square feet of private open space. The project proposes
51 Specialist Chris Rudiger, Los Angeles County Fire Department, telephone conversation, October 11, 2021.
52 Lt. Jose Hernandez, Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, telephone conversation, October 20, 2021.
53 George Murray, Alhambra Unified School District, letter dated October 21, 2021.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 86
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
4,008 square feet of private open space in the form of private patios and more space than required
by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. The project proposes more public and private open space than
required for the site.
It is anticipated that any existing Rosemead residents that move to the project would not significantly
increase their use of City park and recreational facilities. For those residents that move to the site
from outside Rosemead, there could be an increase in the use of City park and recreational facilities.
It is anticipated that most of the project residents would not use City park and recreational facilities to
a level that would significantly impact the existing facilities.
The project developer would be required to pay the city-required development impact fee as required
by RMC Chapter 17.170.010. The development impact fee could be used by the City to provide park
facilities as allowed by RMC Chapter 17.170.090, which includes the purchase of land, design,
construction, equipment, etc. as deemed necessary to serve city residents, including project
residents. The payment of the required development impact fee by the project developer would
reduce potential park and recreational impacts to less than significant.
v. Other public facilities? No Impact. There are no public facilities or services that would be impacted
by the project.
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not significantly impact recreation
facilities. Please see Public Services Section “XV.a.iv” above.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than
Significant Impact. As discussed in Public Services Section “XV.a.iv” above, the project does not
propose the construction of any on-site recreational facilities. However, as discussed in Public Services
Section “XV.a.iv” above, the project would be required to pay the city-required park fee as required by
RMC 12.44.020. The park fee would be used by the City at its discretion to either expand existing
recreational facilities or acquire new parkland. The project does not require the construction or the
expansion of other recreational facilities that would impact the environment.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. A traffic report54
was prepared for the project and is included in Appendix F.
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis55 calculated the trip generation of the
development potential of the Specific Plan (i.e., square feet of floor area for non-residential uses such as
commercial and industrial and the number of residential units) from the existing land uses to the
development allowed by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan area was
categorized into traffic analysis zones (TAZs) to calculate the traffic that would be generated by its
buildout. The project site is located within TAZ 2165-1, which is one of the eleven TAZs.
54 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 Project Transportation Assessment, Ganddini Group, Inc., October 5, 2021.
55 Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead, CA August 29, 2014, KOA Corporation.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 87
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
The trip generation change for each TAZ was calculated based on existing development and a realistic
future buildout scenario and a maximum buildout scenario based on development allowed by the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan.56 Based on the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Table 22 shows the calculated trip
generation for both the realistic and maximum buildout scenarios for TAZ 2165-1, which includes the
proposed project site.
Table 22
Existing TAZ 2165-1 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Trip Generation
Specific Plan Realistic Buildout1
Trips Generated
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Commercial 268 168 436 130 135 265 7,265
Residential 2 9 11 8 5 13 130
Total 270 177 447 138 140 278 7,395
Specific Plan Maximum Buildout2
Trips Generated
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Commercial 492 311 803 238 249 487 13,356
Residential 4 17 21 16 9 25 273
Total 496 328 824 254 258 512 13,629
Notes:
(1) Source: Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR (KOA Corporation, May 26, 2016),
Table 7.
(2) Source: Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR (KOA Corporation, May 26, 2016);
Table 12.
As shown in Table 22, TAZ 2165-1 was forecast to generate 7,395 daily vehicle trips under the realistic
buildout scenario, including 447 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 278 vehicle trips during the
PM peak hour and 13,629 daily vehicle trips under the maximum buildout scenario, including 824 vehicle
trips during the AM peak hour and 512 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.
To determine the trip generation for the project site within TAZ 2165-1 all of the APNs and their associated
land square footage were calculated. Table 23 shows the square footage for each APN and the
percentage of the APN square footage to the total square footage within TAZ 2165-1. As shown in Table
23, the project site is 10.56% of the total square footage of TAZ 2165-1.
56 Significant impacts and subsequent mitigation measures for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan were based on the realistic buildout
scenario.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 88
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Table 23
TAZ 2165-1 Parcel Matrix
Assessor Parcel Number
(APN)2
Land Square Footage
(SF)2
Percentage of APN to
Total TAZ
5286-020-023 99,650 25.48%
5286-020-017 19,958 5.10%
5286-020-018 36,762 9.40%
5286-020-026 22,946 5.87%
5286-020-004 12,043 3.08%
5286-020-003 12,550 3.21%
5286-020-002 28,005 7.16%
5286-020-001 24,365 6.23%
5286-020-030 19,812 5.07%
5286-020-035 39,681 10.15%
5286-022-010 (Project) 30,611 7.83%
5286-022-009 (Project) 10,695 2.73%
5286-022-008 9,092 2.32%
5286-022-002 8,881 2.27%
5286-022-005 3,863 0.99%
5286-022-004 4,306 1.10%
5286-022-003 7,837 2.00%
Total 391,057 100.00%
Proposed Project APNs 41,306 10.56%
Notes:
(1) Source: Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR (KOA Corporation, May 26, 2016); Figure 10. (2) Data based on Los Angeles County Assessor Portal.
Table 24 shows the project trip generation for the project site based on 10.56% of the total area of TAZ
2165-1. As shown, the project site is estimated to generate approximately 781 daily vehicle trips under
the realistic buildout scenario, including 47 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 30 vehicle trips
during the PM peak hour and 1,440 daily vehicle trips under maximum buildout scenario, including 87
vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 54 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.
Table 24
Existing TAZ 2165-1 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Trip Generation – Project APNs
Specific Plan Realistic Buildout1
Trips Generated
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Commercial 28 18 46 14 14 28 767
Residential 0 1 1 1 1 2 14
Total 28 19 47 15 15 30 781
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 89
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Specific Plan Maximum Buildout1
Trips Generated
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Commercial 52 33 85 25 26 51 1,411
Residential 0 2 2 2 1 3 29
Total 52 35 87 27 27 54 1,440
Notes:
(1) The share of the total Garvey Avenue Specific Plan trip generation allocated to the project APNs was
determined based on the project's total APN square footage as a percentage of all APNs in TAZ
2165-1 (10.56%; see Table 2) multiplied by the total trip generation for TAZ 2165-1 (see Table 1).
Project Trip Generation
Table 25 shows the trip generation for the project based upon trip generation rates from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). As shown in Table 25, the
project is calculated to generate approximately 657 daily vehicle trips, including 42 vehicle trips during
the AM peak hour and 41 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Table 4 also shows internal capture
and pass-by trip adjustments in accordance with standard industry practice for mixed-use development.
Table 25
Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation Rates
Land Use
Source1 Unit2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily % In % Out Rate % In % Out Rate
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) ITE 221 DU 23% 77% 0.37 61% 39% 0.39 4.54
Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) ITE 822 TSF 60% 40% 2.36 50% 50% 6.59 54.45
Trips Generated
Land Use
Quantity Unit2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 75 DU 6 21 27 18 11 29 341
Internal Capture (-28%PM in; -
18%PM out) [a] 0 0 0 -5 -2 -7 -7
Subtotal - External Residential
Trips 6 21 27 13 9 22 334
Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) 6.346 TSF 9 6 15 21 21 42 346
Internal Capture (-10%PM in; -
24%PM out) [a] 0 0 0 -2 -5 -7 -7
Subtotal - External Retail Trips 9 6 15 19 16 35 339
Pass-by Trips (-40%PM) [1] 0 0 0 -8 -8 -16 -16
Subtotal - Retail with Pass-By
Adjustment 9 6 15 11 8 19 323
TOTAL NEW PROJECT TRIPS 15 27 42 24 17 41 657
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 90
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
(1) Source:
ITE= Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual (101h Edition, September 2021); ### = Land Use Code(s).
[a] = ITE Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition, 2017). Internal capture rates calculated in accordance with procedures in the handbook. The daily internal
capture is equal to the sum of the peak hour values.
(2) DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Trip Generation Comparison
Table 26 shows the trip generation comparison between the proposed project and the estimated share
of trips allocated to the project site within TAZ 2165-1 based on the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan TIA.
As shown, the project is calculated to generate approximately 124 fewer daily trips, including 5 fewer
trips during the AM peak hour and 11 more PM peak hour trips compared to the trips generated by the
project site in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan TIA for the realistic buildout scenario. As also shown,
the project is calculated to generate approximately 783 fewer daily trips, including 45 fewer trips during
the AM peak hour and 13 fewer trips during the PM peak hour, compared to the trips generated by the
project site in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan TIA for the maximum buildout scenario.
Table 26
Project Trip Generation Comparison to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan TIA/EIR
Specific Plan Realistic Buildout1
Trips Generated
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Existing Specific Plan (Project APNs)1 28 19 47 15 15 30 781
Proposed Project2 15 27 42 24 17 41 657
Difference
-
13 +8 -5 +9 +2 +11 -124
Specific Plan Maximum Buildout1
Trips Generated
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Existing Specific Plan (Project APNs)1 52 35 87 27 27 54 1,440
Proposed Project2 15 27 42 24 17 41 657
Difference
-
37 -8 -45 -3 -10 -13 -783
Notes:
(1) See Table 24
(2) See Table 25
Impact Assessment for Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Change
The project is calculated to generate fewer vehicle trips compared to both the realistic and maximum
buildout scenarios analyzed in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan TIA for the site, except during the PM
peak hour under the realistic buildout scenario. In this case the project is calculated to generate 11 more
PM peak hour trips. The additional 11 PM peak hour trips are nominal and are not anticipated to
significantly impact the level of service (LOS) analysis at any area intersections, significantly impact
findings or adopted traffic mitigation measures in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR. Even if all 11
PM peak hour trips were added to a critical traffic movement, the increase in intersection capacity
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 91
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
utilization (ICU) would be approximately 0.007 and not significantly impact any intersection ICUs as
shown below:
• New Avenue/Garvey Avenue: With mitigation, this intersection was forecast to operate at LOS
during the PM peak hour (0.785 ICU). The intersection would continue to operate at LOS C with
an increase of 11 PM peak hour trips by the project (i.e., 0.007 ICU).
• Jackson Avenue/Garvey Avenue: This intersection was forecast to operate at LOS C during the
PM peak hour (0.787 ICU). This intersection would continue to operate at LOS C with an increase
of 11 PM peak hour trips by the project (i.e., 0.007 ICU).
The project would not result in any new or greater traffic impacts or required new mitigation measures
than identified by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR.
Criteria for The Preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis
Level of Service (LOS) Screening
According to the City of Rosemead Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (February 2007) “[the City TIA
Guidelines”], certain types of projects, because of their size, nature, or location, are exempt from the
requirement of preparing a traffic impact analysis. The City of Rosemead has established guidelines for
assessing Level of Service (LOS) impacts for General Plan operational compliance. As stated in the
Rosemead TIA Guidelines, a traffic impact analysis must be prepared when the project is forecast to
generate 50 or more net new vehicle trips during either the AM or PM peak hour. As shown in Table 26,
the project is calculated to generate fewer than 50 net new AM or PM peak hour trips and is therefore
exempt from preparation of a Level of Service analysis based on the City adopted guidelines.
Based on the above traffic analysis, the project would not have any significant operational traffic impacts.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? No Impact. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) addresses project vehicle miles
traveled (VMT). The traffic study that was prepared for the project includes a VMT analysis.57
California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) directs the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for evaluating transportation impacts to
provide alternatives to Level of Service that “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the
development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” The 2020 CEQA
Guidelines, specifically Section 15064.3, recommends the use of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) as the
primary metric for the evaluation of transportation impacts associated with land use and transportation
projects. In general terms, VMT quantifies the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to
a project or region. All agencies and projects in California are required to utilize CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3 that requires VMT to evaluate transportation impacts as of July 1, 2020.
The CEQA Guidelines allow a lead agency the discretion to establish the VMT methodologies and
thresholds, provided there is substantial evidence to demonstrate that the established procedures
promote the intended goals of the legislation. Where quantitative models or methods are unavailable,
Section 15064.3 allows agencies to assess VMT qualitatively using factors such as availability of transit
and proximity to other destinations. The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on
Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (State of California, December 2018) [“OPR Technical
Advisory”] provides technical considerations regarding methodologies and thresholds with a focus on
office, residential, and retail developments as these projects tend to have the greatest influence on VMT.
57 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 Project Transportation Assessment, Ganddini Group, Inc., October 5, 2021, p. 12.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 92
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
The VMT analysis for the project is based on adopted City of Rosemead VMT guidelines.58 Consistent
with recommendations in the OPR Technical Advisory, the City of Rosemead established screening
criteria for certain projects that may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact and includes
projects located in low-VMT generating areas. The City’s TIA Guidelines specify the following screening
steps: 1) Project Type Screening; 2) Low VMT Area Screening; and 3) Transit Priority Areas Screening.
Project Type Screening Some project types have been identified as having the presumption of a less
than significant impact as they are local serving by nature, or they are small enough to not warrant
assessment.
The retail component of the project satisfies the City-established project type screening for local serving
retail and may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact. Transit Priority Area (TPA)
Screening Projects located within a TPA (half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an
existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact
absent substantial evidence to the contrary. There are currently no TPA areas within the City of
Rosemead. Therefore, the project does not satisfy the City-established screening criteria for projects
located within a TPA.
Low VMT Area Screening
Residential and office projects located within a low VMT generating area may be presumed to have a
less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment-
related and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably
be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the
existing land uses in the low VMT area. A low VMT area is defined as an individual traffic analysis zone
(TAZ) where the total daily VMT is lower than 15% below the baseline total daily VMT.
According to the maps in Rosemead Resolution No. 2020-22 (June 9, 2020), the project is located in a
low VMT area 15% or more below San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) average daily
residential home-based VMT per capita for Rosemead (2012), in a low VMT area 15% or more below
SGVCOG average daily home-based VMT per employee for Rosemead (2012) and in a low VMT area
15% or more below SGVCOG average daily VMT per service population for Rosemead (2012). The
project is located within all three low VMT areas and meets the 15% or more below SGVCOG baseline
VMT criteria.
Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
Projects within a TPA (half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a
high-quality transit corridor) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial
evidence to the contrary. Since there are currently no TPA areas within the City of Rosemead the project
does not meet the City-established screening criteria for projects within a TPA.
As a result, the project is located in three low-VMT generating areas and satisfies the screening criteria
for a low-VMT generating area. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant VMT impact.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. Access
to the project is provided from Prospect Avenue by a two-way driveway at the north end of the site. The
proposed driveway would allow northbound right-turns in and northbound right-turns out of the site. The
project would allow southbound left-turns into and southbound right-turns out of the site at Prospect
Avenue.
58 City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, October 2020.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 93
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Truck Access and Circulation
Service trucks for the commercial uses would have site access from Prospect Avenue by the driveway
at the north end of the site. The project driveway at Prospect Avenue is 26 feet wide. The height of the
two-way driveways into the parking areas of the building is 14 feet in height and 25 feet wide and would
allow access for project residents, employees, small delivery trucks, emergency personnel, and garbage
trucks adequate access to the parking areas and trash receptacles within the building. Delivery trucks
would be limited to a maximum height of 10 feet for access into the parking areas for trash pick-up and
commercial use deliveries.
Truck deliveries shall occur only during off-peak hours so that any potential conflict between trucks and
customers of the project site land uses would be minimal.
There are no proposed driveways, curves, dangerous intersections, or site access designs that would
significantly impact traffic or have significant circulation hazards.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. The existing public streets
and circulation system that serve the site would continue to provide adequate emergency vehicle access
for the project. The proposed project driveway at the north project boundary at Prospect Avenue is 26
feet wide and open with no height restriction. Police, fire, paramedic/ambulance, and other emergency
vehicles would have adequate site access to respond to on-site emergencies to the site via the proposed
project driveway. As stated in section “VII. c)” above, the proposed project driveway at Prospect Avenue
would be reviewed by the city, including the police and fire departments, to ensure the driveway has
adequate widths and turning radius for emergency vehicles to safely enter and exit the site prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The project would not significantly impact emergency access to the site.
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k).
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As required by AB 52, the City mailed
letters to the area Native American Indians that are on record with the City that may have cultural
resources associated with the site. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh
Nation) submitted a letter to the City requesting consultation.
Because the project site lies within the ancestral tribal territory of the Kizh Nation, tribal cultural
resources could exist on the site. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce
potential impacts to Tribal resources, if present.
Mitigation Measure No. 16 Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the
project site, the project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor
approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. A
copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of
Rosemead Planning and Building Department prior to the issuance of
any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The
Tribal monitor shall only be present on-site during the construction
phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbing
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 94
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
activities are defined by the Tribe as activities that may include, but are
not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree
removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the
project area. The Tribal Monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs
that shall provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including
construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials
identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing
activities on the project site are completed, or when the Tribal
Representatives and Tribal Monitor have indicated that all upcoming
ground-disturbing activities at the project site have little to no potential
to impact Tribal Cultural Resources.
Mitigation Measure No. 17 Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources, construction activities
shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the
surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. All Tribal Cultural
Resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by the
qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the Consulting
Tribe. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting
Tribe shall retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems
appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If human
remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the project
site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the county
coroner shall be notified per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98,
and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and
grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public
Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue on
other parts of the project site while evaluation and, if necessary,
mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). If a non-
Native American resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist
to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,”
time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of
avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The
treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and
PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of
treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may
include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to
remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and
analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native
American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with
a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an
institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical
society in the area for educational purposes.
Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential tribal cultural
resource impacts to less than significant.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 95
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As
discussed in section “XVIII.a.i.” above, the project could significantly impact tribal resources if present.
The implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to
tribal resources to less than significant.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities,
the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than
Significant Impact. Water is currently provided to the project site by the Golden State Water Company.
There is an existing 10-inch water main in Garvey Avenue adjacent to the site that would serve the
project. The 10-inch water main has capacity to provide the required potable water supply and fire flow
for the project without the need to construct new water supply facilities or expand existing facilities. An
existing 8-inch sewer line in Prospect Avenue adjacent to the site has existing capacity to serve the
project. Wastewater in the existing 8-inch sewer line flows south to Garvey Avenue and then east in
Garvey Avenue and connects to an existing 27-inch diameter sewer trunk line in San Gabriel Boulevard
that is owned by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. Wastewater in the 27-inch sewer line flows
to the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant located in the City of South El Monte, which has capacity
to treat the wastewater from the project.59 All other utilities required to serve the project, including storm
drainage, electricity, natural gas and telecommunications are located in Prospect and Garvey Avenues
and have capacity to serve the project and would not have to be relocated. The project would not have
any significant public utility impacts.
The project is estimated to consume approximately 14,031 gallons of water per day as shown in Table
27. The project is estimated to generate approximately 13,762 gallons per day of wastewater.60 The
project water and wastewater needs can be accommodated by the existing facilities and construction of
new or expanded water or wastewater facilities would not be required. The project would be required to
install State mandated low flow water fixtures to minimize water consumption and wastewater generation.
The project will not require the construction of any sewer or water lines and have any significantly
environmental impacts.
Table 27
Estimated Project Water Consumption
Use Units/Sq. Ft. Consumption Rate61 Consumption
Residential 75 units 160 gallons/day/unit 12,000 gallons/day
Retail 6,346 sq. ft. 320 gallons/day/1,000 sq. ft. 2,031 gallons/day
Total 14,031 gallons/day
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. Potable
water is provided to the project site by the Golden State Water Company. As shown in Table 23, the
project is estimated to consume approximately 14,031 gallons of water per day. Based on the Golden
State Water Company, South San Gabriel Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, July 16,
59 Ms. Donna Curry, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, letter dated October 19, 2021.
60 Ibid.
61 City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 96
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
2021 the Golden State Water Company has an adequate water supply to meet the demand of the project
into the future. The project would have a less than significant impact on water supply.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. Please see Section “XIX.a” above.
d) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would generate more solid waste from the
site than the current uses due to an increase in the amount of development proposed for the site
compared to the existing development on the site. The solid waste from the project would be hauled to
the Puente Hills Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in the City of Whittier and operated by the Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County. The MRF separates recyclable material from municipal solid waste and
all residual waste is hauled to permitted landfills and all recovered recyclable materials are recycled. The
Puente Hills MRF is permitted to accept up to 4,400 tons per day (8,800,000 pounds/day) of municipal
solid waste. The project is estimated to generate approximately 126 pounds per day of solid waste of
which approximately 50% is recycled and the remaining 50% is hauled to a permitted landfill. The
municipal solid waste generated by the project is not anticipated to significantly impact the permitted
capacity of any Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts landfills. Solid waste collection will be required
to conform to RMC 17.74.050(B)(7) in terms of collection hours, trash enclosures, screening, etc. The
project will not have any significant solid waste impacts.
Once the project is constructed and operational, it is estimated to generate approximately 383 pounds of
solid waste per day.62 Of the 383 pounds, approximately 50%, or 192 pounds per day would be recycled
and the balance of non-recycled material would be hauled to a permitted landfill. The 192 pounds of
solid waste that is estimated to be generated by the project represents a nominal amount of the solid
waste that would be hauled to a landfill that would serve the project. Therefore, the impact of the solid
waste generated by the project would be less than significant.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than
Significant Impact. The City of Rosemead complies with all Federal, State, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste. The project would not have any solid waste impacts because the
residents and commercial uses would be required to comply would all applicable solid waste statues and
regulations and large quantities of solid waste would not be generated.
XX. WILDFIRE: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No
Impact. The project does not propose any improvements that would impair or impact any emergency
response or emergency evacuation plan associated with an emergency response to a fire in the closest
Local Responsibility Area (LRA) or State Responsibility Area (SRA) fire hazard zones.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no moderate, high or very high fire hazard severity
zones in an SRA within the City of Rosemead.63 The closest SRA designated fire hazard zone is the
open space in Turnball Canyon located approximately four miles southeast of the project and outside the
City. There are also no Very High Fire Hazard Safety Zones in a LRA in the City of Rosemead. The
62 https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, Residential - 4 pounds/day/unit, Commercial – 13
pounds/1,000 sq. ft/day.
63 https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6705/fhszs_map19.pdf
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 97
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
closest LRA designated Very High Fire Hazard Safety Zone is the open space in the City of Whittier
located approximately three miles southeast of the project. While the project is not within or adjacent to
any LRA or SRA fire hazard areas, Santa Ana winds could expose project occupants and employees to
smoke and other pollutants associated with wildfires located the LRA and SRA fire hazard areas
southeast of the project. However, that exposure would not be site specific because much of the City of
Rosemead and the general geographic area would be also be exposed and not the project site
specifically. The project would not expose project occupants or employees to significant pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds or other factors.
c) Reguire the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The project would be
required by the 2019 CBC to install fire sprinklers. However, the project would not be required to install
and maintain any roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities to protect
the project and the immediate area from a wildfire because the project is not located in a Moderate, High
or Very High fire hazard zone as discussed in Section “XX. a.” above.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result or runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. As
discussed in Section “XX. a.” above, the project is not located within a Moderate, High or Very High fire
SRA or LRA hazard zone. The project site as well as the area surrounding the project site are relatively
flat and there are no slopes or flooding that could impact the project site due to landslides as a result of
slope runoff, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes. Therefore, the project would not be exposed
and impacted by secondary impacts of a wildfire.
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially
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? Less Than
Significant Impact. The 0.946-acre site is vacant and not developed. The site is sparely vegetated and
the vegetation that is present includes introduced urban landscape materials. There are no rare,
endangered, or sensitive plants or wildlife on the site that would be impacted by the project. The site is
vacant, therefore there are no existing buildings that represent California history or prehistory that would
be impacted by the project. The project would not significantly impact biological resources and would
have no historical resource impacts.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Rosemead
has identified eleven projects that, along with the proposed project, could have cumulative impacts. The
cumulative projects are shown in Table 28 and their locations are shown in Figure 18.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 98
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Table 28
Cumulative Projects
Address Proposed Project Status
#1 - 7419-7459 Garvey
Avenue
20,000 sq. ft. commercial use and 218
residential units Plans Being Revised
#2 - 7801-7825 Garvey
Avenue
Mixed Use with 15,903 sq. ft. of commercial
(office, retail, restaurant) and 60 residential
units
Building Plan Check
#3 - 8002 Garvey Avenue
Mixed Use with 87,919 sq. ft. of commercial
hotel, office, retail, restaurant) and 92
residential units
Plans Being Revised
#4 - 8408 Garvey Avenue
Mixed Use with 11,500 sq. ft. of commercial
(office and retail) and 46 residential units,
including 7 low-income apartments
Under Construction
#5 - 8449 Garvey Avenue
Mixed Use with 7,200 sq. ft. commercial (office,
retail, restaurant) and 35 residential units,
including
6 low-income apartments
Under Construction
#6 - 8900 Glendon Way Five story Hampton Inn & Suites Hotel with 123
guest rooms Building Plans Approved
#7 - 3133-3141 Willard
Avenue 31 residential units Entitled
#8 - 500 Montebello
Boulevard
Six story Marriott Dual Hotel with 199 guest
rooms Entitlements Submitted
#9 - 3035 San Gabriel
Boulevard
Mixed Use with 51,711 sq. ft. commercial and
144 residential units Site Plan Review
#10 - 4316 Muscatel Avenue 10 condominiums Entitlements Submitted
#11 - 8399 Garvey Avenue Proposed 15,000 sq. ft. medical clinic Entitled
#12 – 3001 Garvey Avenue Mixed use with 18,646 sq. ft. of commercial
and 42 condominiums Entitled
Based on the air quality report, the short-term construction emissions and the long-term operational
emissions of the project would not exceed any adopted air emission thresholds. Therefore, the project
would not have any significant short-or long-term cumulative air quality impacts. The project would not
have any individual or cumulative noise or traffic impacts. In addition, the project would not have any
significant impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultural, biological resources, cultural resources,
hazardous, hydrology, soils and geology, land use, public services, utilities or wildfire that along with the
cumulative projects listed in Table 2817.74 would not result in any significant cumulative impacts.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no significant
impacts associated with the proposed project that would cause substantial adverse effects and
significantly impact human beings either directly or indirectly.
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Figure 12Trip Distribution
N
Source: Stantec
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
N
12
Figure 18
Cumulative Project Location Map
Project
Site
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE PROJECT
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 21-01, ZONE CHANGE 21-01
Lead Agency:
City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
(626)-569-2140
Project Proponent:
Del Mar Properties
120 E. Valley Boulevard
San Gabriel, CA 91776
(626) 307-0062
Environmental Consultant:
Phil Martin & Associates
1809 E. Dyer Road, Suite 301
Santa Ana, California 92705
(714) 454-1800
February 22, 2022
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 1
1.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
1.1 Introduction
This is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Prospect Villa
Mixed-Use project. It has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public
Resources Code §21081.6 which, among other things, states that when a governmental
agency adopts or certifies a CEQA document that contains the environmental review of
a proposed project, “The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program
for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order
to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring
program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.”
The City of Rosemead is the lead agency for the project, and is therefore, responsible
for administering and implementing the MMRP. The decision-makers must define
specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements that will be enforced during project
implementation and prior to final approval of the project.
1.2 Project Overview
The project is located on a 0.946-gross acre vacant site at the northeast corner of the
intersection of Garvey Avenue and Prospect Avenue and proposes the development of
a seven–story mixed-use development that totals 97,775 square feet that includes
6,346 square feet of nonresidential (retail/restaurant) use on the first floor and 75
residential units on the first through seventh floors. Of the 75 residential units, 30 are
live-work units, including 4 live-work units on the ground level, 5 live-work units on the
second floor, 7 live-work units on the third floor and 14 live-work units on the fourth
floor. The project proposes 45 apartments on the fifth through seventh floors with 16
apartments on the fifth floor, 15 apartments on the sixth floor and 14 apartments on the
seventh floor. The project includes 17 two-bedroom live-work units, 34 two-bedroom
apartments, 4 two-bedroom loft live-work units, 9 three-bedroom live-work units, 10
three-bedroom apartments and 1 four-bedroom apartment.
The project proposes a total of 110,496 square feet of residential, commercial and
access and hallway space on the 41,235 square foot site that results in a floor area ratio
(FAR) of 2.7 compared to a maximum allowed FAR of 3.0 with the allowed provisions of
community benefits by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. The building footprints covers
32,672 square feet of the project site, or approximately 79.2 percent of the site.
The project proposes 12,547 square feet of landscaping, or 30 percent of the site and
includes drought tolerant shrubs and ground cover, accent street trees, accent benches,
and decorative planter pots in a 5-foot wide parkway amenity zone along both Prospect
Avenue and Garvey Avenue adjacent to the site. Landscaping is proposed for the
courtyards of the fourth through seventh floors of the building and includes 24”x36” high
planter walls. The project proposes 147 parking spaces, including 110 standard
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 2
spaces, 32 compact spaces, 4 handicap accessible spaces and 1 loading space. Of the
147 parking spaces, 42 parking spaces are proposed for the ground floor, 57 parking
spaces are proposed for the second level and 48 parking spaces are proposed for the
third level. The project proposes 3 more parking spaces for public parking than required
by the Rosemead Municipal Code and consistent with the requirements of the
community benefit program. The project also proposes 14 bicycles spaces. The height
to the building to the top of the roof is 75 feet. The total height of the building, including
the top of the parapet, is 80 feet.
A driveway is proposed along the north project boundary to provide one point of
vehicular access to the site from Prospect Avenue. A driveway that extends along the
north project boundary would provide vehicular access from Prospect Avenue. The
Prospect Avenue entry provides an entrance to the ground level parking area and
access to ramps that provide vehicular access to parking on the second and third floor
parking areas. The vehicular access driveway at Prospect Avenue is 26-foot wide and
open with no height restriction. However, there is a 12-foot height restriction for access
from the north site driveway into the ground floor parking. All delivery vehicles for the
nonresidential space on the ground level would enter the site from Prospect Avenue
and park in a designated loading area on the ground level for site deliveries. Delivery
trucks would be restricted to two axle trucks. Delivery trucks would not be allowed to
park along either Prospect Avenue or Garvey Avenue.
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Amendment
The project includes an amendment to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan permitting sit-
down restaurants with a minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an
Administrative Use Permit for beer/wine sales in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan
(GSP) and Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed -Use (GSP-MU) zones.
This proposed Amendment would continue to require a Conditional Use Permit for all
other on-site alcohol sales for sit-down restaurants less than 6,000 square feet.
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the
development of a sit-down restaurant in both the GSP and GSP-MU zones. The
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan states that for eating and drinking establishments with
“On-Sale” ABC license, “A regional or national chain restaurant larger than 6,000
square feet to serve alcohol without a CUP in the GSP-MU zone, provided that a valid
license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) is
obtained.” Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.04.050 (Definitions - General)
defines a "Restaurant, Sit-down" as “an establishment engaged in the business of
selling food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages, prepared on site for primarily
on-site consumption. Food and beverages are served to the customer at a fixed
location (i.e., booth, counter, or table). Food and beverages are ordered from a menu.
Customers typically pay for food and beverages after service and/or consumption. The
sale or service of sandwiches, whether prepared in the kitchen or made elsewhere and
heated on the premises, or snack foods, shall not constitute a sit-down restaurant.”
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 3
The City recently adopted the Freeway Corridor Mixed-Use Overlay (FCMU) that
encompasses six geographic areas within Rosemead. The areas total approximately
60 acres (186 parcels) and were selected based on proximity to the Interstate 10 (I-10)
Freeway, location along primary City corridors, and adjacency to public transit lines.
FCMU Overlay areas are located along Del Mar Avenue, San Gabriel Boulevard,
Walnut Grove Avenue, Valley Boulevard, Temple City Boulevard, and Rosemead
Boulevard. The FCMU Overlay identifies special provisions for land use, development
standards, urban design, community benefits, and by -right uses, in addition to those in
the existing underlying base zone, to support appropriate mixed-use and residential
development. The FCMU Overlay also identifies public and private realm improvements
that will further enhance the aesthetic and character of these areas.
Similar to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, the FCMU Overlay requires a CUP for the
development of an eating and drinking establishment with an “On-Sale” ABC license in
both the FCMU-Corridor (FCMU-C) and FCMU-Block (FCMU-B) overlay zones. As
shown in Table 2-1 Permitted Uses of the FCMU, “a sit-down restaurant larger than
1,000 square feet is permitted to serve beer/wine with an AUP (Administrative Use
Permit), provided that a valid license from ABC is obtained. See RMC 17.30.040 for
additional information related to alcohol beverage sales and RMC 17.04.050 for
definition of a sit-down restaurant.” To be consistent with the FCMU and assist the
development community in Rosemead with relief for businesses that are facing
economic hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic, including the Prospect Villa project
applicant, the City proposes the Amendment to allow a sit-down restaurant with
beer/wine sales larger than 1,000 square feet, in the GSP and GSP-MU zones with an
AUP. A sit-down restaurant would also have to meet the requirements of RMC
17.30.040 for alcohol beverage sales and RMC 17.04.050 for the definition of a sit-down
restaurant.
The project site is also requesting a specific plan amendment from Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan ( GSP) to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-Use (GSP-MU) and a zone
change from Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized
Mixed-Use (GSP-MU).
1.3 Monitoring and Reporting Procedures
This MMRP includes the following information: (1) mitigation measures that will either
eliminate or lessen the potential impact from the project; (2) the monitoring milestone or
phase during which the measure should be complied with or carried out; (3) the
enforcement agency responsible for monitoring mitigation measure compliance; and (4)
the initials of the person verifying the mitigation measure was completed and the date of
verification.
The MMRP will be in place through all phases of a project including project design
(preconstruction), project approval, project construction, and operation (both prior to and
post-occupancy). The City will ensure that all monitoring is documented through
periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 4
environmental monitor will track and document compliance with mitigation measures,
note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to rectify problems.
Each mitigation measure is listed and categorized by impact area, with an
accompanying discussion of:
• The phase of the project during which the measure should be monitored;
❑ Project review and prior to project approval
❑ During grading or building plan check review and prior to issuance of a
grading or building permit
❑ On-going during construction
❑ Throughout the life of the project
• The enforcement agency; and
• The initials of the person verifying completion of the mitigation measure and
date. The MMRP is provided as Table 1 (Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting
Program).
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 5
Table 1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation
Measure
No.
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Milestone
Enforcement
Agency
Verification of
Compliance
Aesthetics
1. Prior to the issuance of a
building permit the project
applicant shall submit a
lighting plan for approval by
the Planning Division that
incorporates any of the
following light reducing
measures as applicable:
• Select lighting fixtures with
more-precise optical control
and/or different lighting
distribution.
• Relocate and/or change the
height and/or orientation of
proposed lighting fixtures.
• Add external shielding and/or
internal reflectors to fixtures.
• Select lower-output
lamp/lamp technologies
• A combination of the above.
Prior to the
issuance of
a building
permit.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Air Quality
2. Prior to the start and
throughout project
construction, the contractor
shall implement and maintain
the following fugitive dust
control measures:
• Apply soil stabilizers or
moisten inactive areas.
• Water exposed surfaces as
needed to avoid visible
dust leaving the
construction site (typically
2-3 times/day).
• Cover all stockpiles with
tarps at the end of each
day or as needed.
• Provide water spray during
loading and unloading of
earthen materials.
• Minimize in-out traffic from
construction zone.
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt,
sand, or loose material and
Prior to the
start of
construction
and on-
going during
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 6
require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of
freeboard.
• Sweep streets daily if visible
soil material is carried out
from the construction site.
3. Throughout project
construction the contractor
shall:
• Utilize well-tuned off-road
construction equipment.
• Establish a preference for
contractors using Tier 3 or
better heavy equipment.
• Enforce 5-minute idling limits
for both on-road trucks and
off-road equipment.
Throughout
project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Cultural Resources
4. The project developer shall
retain a qualified professional
archaeologist who meets U.S.
Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and
Standards, to conduct an
Archaeological Sensitivity
Training for construction
personnel prior to
commencement of excavation
activities. The training session
shall be carried out by a
cultural resource professional
with expertise in archaeology,
who meets the U.S. Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards.
The training session shall
include a handout and will
focus on how to identify
archaeological resources that
may be encountered during
earthmoving activities and the
procedures to be followed in
such an event, the duties of
archaeological monitors, and
the general steps a qualified
professional archaeologist
would follow in conducting a
salvage investigation if one is
necessary.
Prior to the
start of
excavation
activities.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 7
5. In the event that
archaeological resources are
unearthed during ground-
disturbing activities, ground-
disturbing activities shall be
halted or diverted away from
the vicinity of the find so that
the find can be evaluated. A
buffer area of at least 50 feet
shall be established around
the find where construction
activities shall not be allowed
to continue until a qualified
archaeologist has examined
the newly discovered
artifact(s) and has evaluated
the area of the find. Work
shall be allowed to continue
outside of the buffer area. All
archaeological resources
unearthed by project
construction activities shall be
evaluated by a qualified
professional archaeologist,
who meets the U.S. Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards.
Should the newly discovered
artifacts be determined to be
prehistoric, Native American
Tribes/Individuals shall be
contacted and consulted, and
Native American construction
monitoring shall be initiated.
The project developer and the
City shall coordinate with the
archaeologist to develop an
appropriate treatment plan for
the resources. The plan may
include implementation of
archaeological data recovery
excavations to address
treatment of the resource
along with subsequent
laboratory processing and
analysis.
Throughout
project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Cultural Resources
6. The project developer shall
retain a qualified professional
archaeologist, who meets the
Prior to the
start of
excavation
City of
Rosemead
Building
_____________
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 8
U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and
Standards to conduct periodic
Archaeological Spot Checks
beginning at depths below 2’
feet to determine if
construction excavations have
exposed or have a high
probability to expose
archaeological resources.
After the initial Archaeological
Spot Check, further periodic
checks shall be conducted at
the discretion of the qualified
archaeologist. If the qualified
archaeologist determines that
construction excavations have
exposed or have a high
probability to expose
archaeological artifacts
construction monitoring for
Archaeological Resources
shall be required. The project
developer shall retain a
qualified archaeological
monitor, who will work under
the guidance and direction of a
professional archaeologist,
who meets the qualifications
set forth by the U.S. Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards.
The archaeological monitor
shall be present during all
construction excavations (e.g.,
grading, trenching, or
clearing/grubbing) into non-fill
younger Pleistocene alluvial
sediments. Multiple earth-
moving construction activities
may require multiple
archaeological monitors. The
frequency of monitoring shall
be based on the rate of
excavation and grading
activities, proximity to known
archaeological resources, the
materials being excavated
(native versus artificial fill
soils), and the depth of
excavation, and if found, the
activities
and
throughout
project
construction.
Department Initial
_______________
Date
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 9
abundance and type of
archaeological resources
encountered. Full-time
monitoring can be reduced to
part-time inspections if
determined adequate by the
project archaeologist.
7. The archaeological monitor,
under the direction of a
qualified professional
archaeologist who meets the
U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and
Standards, shall prepare a
final report at the conclusion of
archaeological monitoring.
The report shall be submitted
to the project developer, the
South Central Costal
Information Center, the City,
and representatives of other
appropriate or concerned
agencies to signify the
satisfactory completion of the
project and required mitigation
measures. The report shall
include a description of
resources unearthed, if any,
evaluation of the resources
with respect to the California
Register and CEQA, and
treatment of the resources.
On-going
throughout
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Noise
8. All construction equipment
shall be equipped with
mufflers and other suitable
noise attenuation devices
(e.g., engine shields).
On-going
during project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
9. Grading and construction
contractors shall use rubber-
tired equipment rather than
track equipment, to the
maximum extent feasible.
On-going
during project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
10. If feasible, electric hook-ups
shall be provided to avoid
the use of generators. If
electric service is
On-going
during project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 10
determined to be infeasible
for the site, only whisper-
quiet generators shall be
used (i.e., inverter
generators capable of
providing variable load.
_______________
Date
11. Electric air compressors and
similar power tools rather
than diesel equipment shall
be used, where feasible.
On-going
during project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
12. Generators and stationary
construction equipment shall
be staged and located as far
from the adjacent residential
structures as feasible.
On-going
during project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
13. Construction-related
equipment, including heavy-
duty equipment, motor
vehicles, and portable
equipment, shall be turned
off when not in use for more
than 5 minutes.
On-going
during project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
14. A sign shall be posted in a
readily visible location at the
project site that indicates the
dates and duration of
construction activities, as
well as provide a telephone
number where residents can
enquire about the
construction process and
register complaints to an
assigned construction noise
disturbance coordinator.
On-going
during project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
15. Dozers shall not operate
within 25 feet of the north
property line.
On-going
during project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 11
Tribal Cultural Resources
16. Prior to the commencement
of any ground disturbing
activity at the project site, the
project applicant shall retain a
Native American Monitor
approved by the Gabrieleno
Band of Mission Indians-Kizh
Nation. A copy of the
executed contract shall be
submitted to the City of
Rosemead Planning and
Building Department prior to
the issuance of any permit
necessary to commence a
ground-disturbing activity.
The Tribal monitor shall only
be present on-site during the
construction phases that
involve ground-disturbing
activities. Ground disturbing
activities are defined by the
Tribe as activities that may
include, but are not limited to,
pavement removal, potholing
or auguring, grubbing, tree
removals, boring, grading,
excavation, drilling, and
trenching, within the project
area. The Tribal Monitor
shall complete daily
monitoring logs that shall
provide descriptions of the
day’s activities, including
construction activities,
locations, soil, and any
cultural materials identified.
The on-site monitoring shall
end when all ground-
disturbing activities on the
project site are completed, or
when the Tribal
Representatives and Tribal
Monitor have indicated that
all upcoming ground-
disturbing activities at the
project site have little to no
potential to impact Tribal
Cultural Resources.
Prior to the
start of any
ground
disturbing
activity.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 12
17. Upon discovery of any Tribal
Cultural Resources,
construction activities shall
cease in the immediate
vicinity of the find (not less
than the surrounding 100
feet) until the find can be
assessed. All Tribal Cultural
Resources unearthed by
project activities shall be
evaluated by the qualified
archaeologist and Tribal
monitor approved by the
Consulting Tribe. If the
resources are Native
American in origin, the
Consulting Tribe shall retain
it/them in the form and/or
manner the Tribe deems
appropriate, for educational,
cultural and/or historic
purposes. If human remains
and/or grave goods are
discovered or recognized at
the project site, all ground
disturbance shall immediately
cease, and the county
coroner shall be notified per
Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98, and Health
& Safety Code Section
7050.5. Human remains and
grave/burial goods shall be
treated alike per California
Public Resources Code
section 5097.98(d)(1) and
(2). Work may continue on
other parts of the project site
while evaluation and, if
necessary, mitigation takes
place (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5[f]). If a non-
Native American resource is
determined by the qualified
archaeologist to constitute a
“historical resource” or
“unique archaeological
resource,” time allotment and
funding sufficient to allow for
implementation of avoidance
On-going
during
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 13
measures, or appropriate
mitigation, must be available.
The treatment plan
established for the resources
shall be in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(f) for historical
resources and PRC Sections
21083.2(b) for unique
archaeological resources.
Preservation in place (i.e.,
avoidance) is the preferred
manner of treatment. If
preservation in place is not
feasible, treatment may
include implementation of
archaeological data recovery
excavations to remove the
resource along with
subsequent laboratory
processing and analysis.
Any historic archaeological
material that is not Native
American in origin shall be
curated at a public, non-profit
institution with a research
interest in the materials, such
as the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles
County or the Fowler
Museum, if such an institution
agrees to accept the material.
If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, it
shall be offered to a local
school or historical society in
the area for educational
purposes.
1
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 21-01 ZONE CHANGE 21-01
(ORDINANCE NO. 1008 AND RESOLUTION 2022-18)
7539 & 7545 GARVEY AVENUE
(APNS: 5286-022-009 AND 5286-022-010)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
April 12, 2022
Standard Conditions of Approvals
1. Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01 (“Project”) are approved for the
amendment of the Zoning Map by changing the zone of 7539 & 7545 Garvey Avenue from
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-
Use (GSP-MU) zone, for the development of a seven-story, mixed-use development with
6,346 square feet of nonresidential (commercial) use on the first floor and 75 residential units
on the first through seventh floors. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted
for the review and approval of the Planning Division.
2. The following conditions must be complied to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior
to final approval of the associated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, or any other
appropriate request.
3. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any development plans
subsequently submitted to the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, and Public
Works Department.
4. Approval of Project shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant(s) have filed with
the City of Rosemead (“City”) a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of and accepts
all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions
within ten (10) days from the Planning Commission approval date.
5. The on-site public hearing notice posting shall be removed by the end of the 10-day appeal
period of Project.
6. Project is approved for a period of one (1) year. The applicant(s) shall commence the approved
project or request an extension within 30 calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1) year
initial approval period shall be effective from the Planning Commission approval date. For
the purpose of this petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the
permitting process with the Planning and Building Divisions, so long as the project is not
abandoned. If Project has been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1)
year, it shall become null and void.
EXHIBIT “B”
2
7. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve
minor modifications to the project and to these conditions of approval.
8. Project is granted or approved with the City and its Planning Commission and City Council
retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including
the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include,
but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature
of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of
right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning
Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or
approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed
on Project.
9. The applicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of
Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval
of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is
brought within the time period provided by law.
10. The applicant(s) shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved
use, including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff, and Health
Departments.
11. Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time as all plan
check fees and all other applicable fees are paid in full. Prior to issuance of building permits,
any required school fees shall be paid. The applicant shall provide the City with written
verification of compliance from the applicable school districts.
12. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six (6) inches tall with a minimum character
width of 3/4 inch, contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street.
Materials, colors, location, and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the
Community Development Director, or his/her designee, prior to installation.
13. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any federal holiday. The
applicant shall abide by the noise control sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
14. The Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, and Public Works Department shall
have access to the project site at any time during construction to monitor progress.
15. All requirements of the Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, and Public Works
Department shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction.
16. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow prevention
3
devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces, and other equipment) shall be located away
from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be
seen from the public right-of-way.
17. All new roof-top appurtenances and equipment shall be adequately screened from view to the
satisfaction of the Planning Division. Such equipment shall not exceed the height of the
parapet wall. There shall be no mechanical equipment located on the sides of the building.
18. The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re-painted periodically to
City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In accordance with the Rosemead
Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be
maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
19. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation
proceedings.
20. The applicant(s) shall keep the electrical and mechanical equipment and/or emergency exits
free of any debris, storage, furniture, etc., and maintain a minimum clearance of five (5) feet.
Project Specific Conditions of Approval
21. All property that is vacant, under construction, or being demolished shall be totally enclosed
around the perimeter by a fence that is a minimum of six (6) feet in height as measured from
adjacent property, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or other
designated officials. The following requirements shall be satisfied:
a. The required fence shall be adequately constructed from chain-link, lumber,
masonry or other approved materials. The fence shall be entirely self-supporting
and shall not encroach or utilize structures or fencing on any adjacent property
without prior written approval of the adjacent property owner.
b. The fence shall be installed prior to the initiation of any construction or demolition
and shall be continuously maintained in good condition.
c. Signs stating "PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING" shall be posted on the
fence.
22. A final wall plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to
the issuance of building permits. All walls and/or fences height shall comply with the
requirements in the Rosemead Municipal Code and shall consist of decorative material, which
match or complement the residential buildings in color, material, and design.
23. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti-free state.
24. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed and litter-free state. All trash containers shall be
stored in the approved trash enclosure at all times. All trash and garbage receptacles shall be
4
regularly inspected and cleaned, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition.
25. All trash enclosures shall be designed to be an integral part of the overall project design, and
utilize complementary colors and materials. All trash enclosures shall have a solid roof cover
and doors shall be opaque, self-closing, and self-latching. Detailed elevations shall be
submitted to the Planning Division for review, and if satisfactory, approval, prior to submittal
to the Building and Safety Division.
26. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review
and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape and irrigation plan shall
comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and with the Guidelines for
Implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and include a sprinkler system
with automatic timers and moisture sensors.
27. All parking spaces shall comply with the currently applicable section of the Rosemead
Municipal Code. All covered parking spaces shall be free and clear with no obstruction.
28. To deter vehicular traffic from entering into the residential neighborhood, a “left-turn only”
sign shall be posted at the project driveway exit. The City’s Traffic Engineer shall determine
placement of such sign.
29. All delivery vehicles for the nonresidential space on the ground level would enter the site
from Prospect Avenue and park in a designated loading area on the ground level for site
deliveries. Delivery trucks would be restricted to two axle trucks. Delivery trucks would not
be allowed to park along either Prospect Avenue or Garvey Avenue.
30. Truck deliveries shall occur only during off-peak hours so that any potential conflict between
trucks, residents, and customers of the project site land uses will be minimal. All truck
deliveries shall comply with Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 8.36.
31. Pickup trucks equipped to lift dumpsters shall be utilized to move solid waste and recyclable
materials from the trash enclosures to the street, adjacent to the site on the City designated
day for trash collection for normal trash collection. At the end of the day, the private pickup
truck would return the dumpsters to their respective location within the parking structure.
32. Prior to the issuance of Building permits, the Developer shall develop a comprehensive
Construction Management Plan, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division,
Building and Safety Division, and Public Works Department. The Construction Management
Plan shall address security of site and equipment, noise, vibrations, traffic control, parking,
debris removal, staging, dust control, sanitary facilities, and other potential construction
impacts, as well as other details involving the means and methods of completing the project,
including the construction equipment route. The City has the authority to require
modifications and amendments to the Construction Management Plan as deemed necessary
throughout the course of the project and until the final inspection.
5
33. A construction notice shall be mailed to residents within a 300’ radius from the project site to
inform them of the commencement of construction. The notice shall me mailed ten days prior
to commencement.
34. Any exterior lighting shall be fully shielded and directed downwards as to not project over
the property lines of the subject site.
35. The applicant shall submit a Master Sign Program for the mixed-use development to the
Planning Division for review and approval prior to finalization of building permits for the
project.
36. The developer shall make all efforts within the first six months of the leasing period to
incorporate national or regional tenants into the commercial leasing spaces.
37. All open areas not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped and
maintained on a regular basis. Maintenance procedures of such landscaped and common areas
shall be specifically stated in the CC&Rs prior to issuance of any building permit.
38. Restrictions and/or covenants shall be recorded on the property to ensure the benefits or
amenities provided to earn the Community Benefit Incentives are maintained in perpetuity.
The project includes five community benefit incentives totaling 131 earned points for a 3.0
floor area ratio (FAR) and density of 80 units/acre. The type of benefit and points earned are
listed below:
a. Lot Consolidation – 35 points
b. Family Friendly Development – 50 points
c. Nonresidential Component of Mixed-Use Development Sites – 20 points and
5% increase in residential to make the split 70% residential to 30% commercial
d. Public Parking – 6 points
e. Sustainable Design (CAL-Green Tier 1) – 20 points
f. Alternative Energy – 30 Points
Public Works Conditions of Approval
39. Copy all conditions of approval and the Planning decision letter onto all permit plan sets.
40. The approved building address(s) shall be painted on the curb to the City’s standard as
required by the Public Works Inspector before the final inspection.
41. Rehabilitate existing AC street pavement along the property frontage to the centerline of the
street or pay an in-lieu fee equal to the estimated cost of street rehabilitation based on the Los
Angeles County Land Development Division Bond Calculation Sheets before the issuance of
6
building permits to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee. There is a street-cut
moratorium on Garvey.
42. Any trenching asphalt or concrete pavement or street or sidewalk removal related to the
project repair shall match the existing surfaces and as directed by the City Engineer or his
designee. New pavement thickness shall be one inch greater than the existing. There is a
street-cut moratorium on Garvey.
43. Dedicate street R/W to match the ultimate R/W condition, when applicable.
44. The required street improvements shall include those portions of roadways contiguous to the
subject property and include:
a. Reconstruct existing and construct new driveway approaches with current ADA
bypass requirements per SPPWC, latest edition. No portion of the driveway and/or
parkway shall encroach to the frontage of the adjacent property. Remove and
replace relocated driveway approaches with sidewalk and curb and gutter.
b. Remove and reconstruct all damaged and/or off-grade curbs, gutters, ADA ramps,
driveway approaches, and sidewalks.
c. Install street storm drain catch basin trash grates adjacent to the property (type to
match City standard), when applicable.
45. Historical or existing stormwater flow from adjacent lots must be received and directed by
gravity to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or an approved drainage easement.
46. Prepare and submit hydrology and hydraulic calculations for the sizing of all proposed
drainage devices. The analysis shall also determine if changes in the post-development versus
pre-development conditions have occurred. The analysis shall be stamped by a California
State Registered Civil Engineer and prepared per the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works Hydrology Method.
47. All grading projects require an Erosion Control Plan as part of the grading plans. A grading
permit will not be issued until and Erosion Control Plan is approved by the Engineering
Department.
48. If the project is greater than one acre, a Storm Water Pollution Plan is required. A Notice of
Intent (NOI) shall be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. When submitting
the SWPPP for the City’s review, please include the NOI and the Waste Discharger
Identification (WDID) number.
49. Adjust, relocate, and/or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements or other physical
improvements to comply with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect on the date the
City determined the application to be complete all to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department.
7
50. Submit a LID plan and comply with all NPDES requirements.
51. If applicable, install Full Capture Devices (FCDs) on each storm drain catch basin adjacent to
the property pursuant Los Angeles River Trash TMDL requirements and City standard.
52. Show clearly all existing lot lines and proposed lot line on the plans.
53. Provide a complete boundary and topographic survey.
54. Show any easement on the plans as applicable.
55. A Lot Merger or Covenant to Hold All Parcels as one shall be required, dependent on the City
Engineer’s determination.
Traffic
56. Comply with all traffic requirements.
57. If the project generates 50 or more new peak-hour vehicle trips, then a traffic impact study
will need to be completed. A trip generation table with distribution of project trips at each
driveway should be submitted to City Engineering and Traffic to determine the extent and
scope of the Traffic Analysis required.
58. Internal access, on-site parking, and line of sight at each project driveway shall be submitted
to determine if off-site parking restrictions are necessary.
Sewer
59. If applicable, approval of this land division is contingent upon providing a separate sewer
lateral to serve each lot of the land division.
60. Conduct a sewer capacity study per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
Guidelines of existing sewer facilities that serve the proposed development. The developer
shall either pay in-lieu fees equal to the estimated cost (based on Los Angeles County Land
Development Division Bond Calculation Sheets) of the proposed development’s percentage
of the design capacity of the existing sewer system prior to the issuance of building permits
or provide sewer improvements to deficient sewer segments serving the subject property to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
61. Based on the project sewer analysis and the design capacity conditions of the existing sewer
system in relation to the proposed project, sewer main/trunk line improvements and/or in-lieu
fees shall be required.
62. All existing laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the public right of way to the
8
satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Building Official of the City of Rosemead.
Utilities
63. All power, telephone, cable television, and all utilities to the project and adjacent to the project
shall be underground.
64. Any utilities that conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense.
65. Provide a street lighting plan and parking lot lighting plan.
Water
66. Prior to the filing of the final map, there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a statement
from the water purveyor indicating compliance with the Fire Chief's fire flow requirements.
67. Water hydrant, water meter box and utilities box shall be located 8 feet away from parkway
trees and 3 feet away from driveway approach.
68. Prior to the approval of the tentative map, there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a
statement from the water purveyor and fire department indicating compliance with the Fire
Chief's fire flow requirements.
Mitigation Measure Conditions
Aesthetics
69. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan
for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates the following light reducing measures
as applicable:
a. Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/or different lighting
distribution.
b. Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures.
c. Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures.
d. Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies.
e. A combination of the above.
Air Quality
70. Prior to the start and throughout project construction, the contractor shall implement and
maintain the following fugitive dust control measures:
a. Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive areas.
9
b. Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the construction site
(typically 2-3 times/day).
c. Cover all stockpiles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed.
d. Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials.
e. Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone.
f. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material and require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
g. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.
71. Throughout project construction the contractor shall:
a. Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.
b. Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better heavy equipment.
c. Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment.
Cultural Resources
72. The project developer shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets U.S.
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, to conduct an
Archaeological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of
excavation activities. The training session shall be carried out by a cultural resource
professional with expertise in archaeology, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and Standards. The training session shall include a handout and
will focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered during
earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of
archaeological monitors, and the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist would
follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary.
73. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground disturbing activities,
ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so
that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around
the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until a qualified
archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of
the find. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. All archaeological
resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified
professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be
prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be contacted and consulted, and
Native American construction monitoring shall be initiated. The project developer and the
City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the
resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery
excavations to address treatment of the resource along with subsequent laboratory
processing and analysis.
74. The project developer shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S.
10
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards to conduct periodic
Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below 2’ feet to determine if construction
excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological resources.
After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks shall be conducted at
the discretion of the qualified archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that
construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological
artifacts construction monitoring for Archaeological Resources shall be required. The
project developer shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who will work under the
guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist, who meets the qualifications set
forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. The
archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading,
trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill younger Pleistocene alluvial sediments.
Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological
monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading
activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated
(native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance
and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to
part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist.
75. The archaeological monitor, under the direction of a qualified professional archaeologist
who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards,
shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall
be submitted to the project developer, the South Central Costal Information Center, the City,
and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory
completion of the project and required mitigation measures. The report shall include a
description of resources unearthed, if any, evaluation of the resources with respect to the
California Register and CEQA, and treatment of the resources.
Noise
76. All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and other suitable noise
attenuation devices (e.g., engine shields).
77. Grading and construction contractors shall use rubber-tired equipment rather than track
equipment, to the maximum extent feasible.
78. If feasible, electric hook-ups shall be provided to avoid the use of generators. If electric
service is determined to be infeasible for the site, only whisper-quiet generators shall be
used (i.e., inverter generators capable of providing variable load.
79. Electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment shall be used,
where feasible.
80. Generators and stationary construction equipment shall be staged and located as far from
11
the adjacent residential structures as feasible.
81. Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and
portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes.
82. A sign shall be posted in a readily visible location at the project site that indicates the dates
and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number where
residents can enquire about the construction process and register complaints to an assigned
construction noise disturbance coordinator.
83. Dozers shall not operate within 25 feet of the north property line.
Tribal Cultural Resources
84. Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the project site, the project
applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of
Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. A copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City
of Rosemead Planning and Building Department prior to the issuance of any permit
necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The Tribal monitor shall only be
present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities.
Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Tribe as activities that may include, but are
not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring,
grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor
shall complete daily monitoring logs that shall provide descriptions of the day’s activities,
including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The
on-site monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing activities on the project site are
completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and Tribal Monitor have indicated that all
upcoming ground-disturbing activities at the project site have little to no potential to impact
Tribal Cultural Resources.
85. Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources, construction activities shall cease in the
immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be
assessed. All Tribal Cultural Resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by
the qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the Consulting Tribe. If the
resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribe shall retain it/them in the
form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic
purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the project
site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the county coroner shall be notified
per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5.
Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public
Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue on other parts of the
project site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5[f]). If a non-Native American resource is determined by the qualified
archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time
allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or
12
appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources
shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources
and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place
(i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible,
treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to
remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic
archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public,
non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to
accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered
to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
Attachment C
Planning Commission Staff Report,
dated March 7, 2022 (without attachments)
ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: MARCH 7, 2022
SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 21-01 AND ZONE CHANGE 21-01
7539 & 7545 GARVEY AVENUE
SUMMARY
Del Mar Property, LLC has submitted entitlement applications requesting to amend the
Zoning Map by changing the zone of the subject properties from Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan (GSP) to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed -Use (GSP-
MU) zone, for the development of a new residential/commercial mixed-use
development. The project is located on a 0.95 acre vacant site at the northeast corner
of the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Garvey Avenue (7539 & 7545 Garvey
Avenue, APN Nos. 5286-022-009 and 5286-022-010). The project proposes the
construction of a seven -story, mixed-use development with 6,346 square feet of
nonresidential (commercial) use on the first floor and 75 residential units on the first
through seventh floors. Of the 75 residential units, 30 are live/work units and 45 are
residential apartments. The project also proposes 147 parking spaces, including 110
standard spaces, 32 compact spaces, four handicap accessible spaces, and one
loading space and 12,547 square feet of landscaping. The project also includes a text
amendment to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan permitting sit-down restaurants with a
minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an Administrative Use Permit
AUP) for beer/wine sales in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) and Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed -Use (GSP-MU) zones.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Initial Study has been undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a
significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. On the
basis of the Initial Study, the City of Rosemead has concluded that the project would
have a significant impact, unless mitigated, therefore a Draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) was prepared. The MND reflects the independent judgment of the
City as a lead agency per CEQA Guidelines. The project site is not on a list compiled
pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5.
CD CD Oh C' n D CD
rt•
i,
n ,
r
T* -
1
r
cn
wcn (
D
2-
D
m
m
C
SCD
O
N '
D
Q -
CDC (n' `°"
w
m
oopQ
D
C)
mzr '
mm
oNo
m
0 =
p
n
0
0
0
o -
o
m
v
m
rt
o
N
Q "'
a
su
n - ,
o
D —
1
X
v
w
O
r+
v
N
CD
m
ci
O
CD
V :
3 -
0
C7
m ('
D
v
3 :3
CD3
mo
con • _
0
Q -
o
3cQ •
3
p
Z
O ('
v
w
O
0 .
K
m
v
Z
O
p
N
O0
m
conn (
Q
CD
O
3
v
vD
W
v
v =
vO'
o
w
L
p
cow -
CO:
o
rr
cn
v
v
v •
O'
Z <
3
Vin' .
v
o
0- (
D
v
m
0--+,
0
o(
n ( (
0 ..
v=
W.= -
o
Q•
n.
o
0(
D
Q
v
vCD0w
D
h
m
v
n (
Q
cn --
I -
0
0
O
w
m
w
N
O
v
O
O=
M
y
O
Q
O
m
o
C
cn <
Sv
rtQm
t,
Z !:
SU (
Q (
7
rr (
p -
y,
3
v
O
Z
CD
O
h
D
cD
n
c
Q-.
Q (
D (
D
3Q-
o_
oZ
s
cc'
3v
v (
D—
moo
0 _`<
Z(
D
0
O
0--
o
n.•
N (
D
v
n
O
cn (
Q (<
D
con
3
0
N
O
O
Q
v
c
O
m
O
D
CD
n
o
O
m
CD
0
c
CL
O
O (
D
ZT
a) ;:
p
OL <<
r
r (
D
0
O
Q --
I(
Q
v (
n --
h
Q
0
0
0 *
2
U
3
0
D
v
v
w
O
5' "
O <
on
rto
hzrzT
1 -,
v
O -
AZT (
D
O
O
Ox
O0-
N
n
CQ
CD (
D (
7
v
icon (
D0vom-'(
D
a
CD
N
nQ(
D
Nom'
v
3
zr
0
fTl
0O
y
ED
w ==
boort
aZ -_
v
NCD
CD (
D
CQ
O
D
n. _ (
O
O
N
NZC- _ : -
N
3i (
D
O (<
D (
D
O
O5
0 (
n
rNG)
M
N
o
CD
m
rNG)(
n
N
O
CD
O
rNG)
Z
D)
O (
D
O
m
C
C
C(
P
U)
cn
U)
D
DD
FJ'
CD
W.
m
m
v .
0
m C
C
C
C
cn
n
U)
n (
n(
n
n
CDcn
CD
mm
m
am
v
v
v
0
0
0
nG)
G)
0G)
G)
701:
E:
D << <<
CD
D
DD
FJ'
CD
W.
m
m
v .
0
m C
C
C
C
cn
CD
CD
CD
CD
n (
n(
n
n
CDcn
CD
mm
m
am
C)
n
n
n
D
Cn
n (
7
Eii
0
C)
CD
3
Z3
D
v
G)
n
n
0
N Z)
m
O
5
cn
Q
r"
Q
CD
CL
QCDO
in -
O (
DO
CCDQ
O
O. CD ((
D
w
CL
G)
Q
O (
D D
D
v m DCDo D C/ m
DD D
F
U) DD O
Cn
n
D
Q
cn
O
D Cn
CD
CD 90 Q r CL CNDN
m5. La Oc CDN_ CD
0
m
n
0Q
zy
CD (
D
t/)
O
zr (
D
O
zT CD
O
C7
CD
m
o
D
Oc
v
O
77
D
O
v
n
v
O
3
in-' (
D
Z5
z
rt
CD
0-
0
Q
w -
h
O (
n _
CD
C
3
O
CQ
cn
v
Z
N
O
Q
CO
3
n
O
O 3
L).
3
Q
C
O OQ
77
CD
CDv
O
j, -
0
cDo
3D
cn0Z3 mm cfl
mcnCD
cn
T
7CD —
N
0i3
m0
M-
p
Sv
W ,
CD
N
O
N
oW _ Q
cQgyp' -
c
0 (
D
m
3 CD
nK
n
Q -
0 -
co
5'
iU
W
C—
D
0- _
n
N
G7
C
c
o
v
p
I (
D =
t
Q
o
m
cD - -*
si%
to ° (
D
rt
CD `
N
Z3
c
Q
v
2
m
O (
P
m
Q
3
O
o
0 ,-
c ,-
c
M (
D
O(
n
v
o= c <
c
3 _
O
c
Z
m
X
a
N
CD
CD (
D
N
O v
O
0
0-=
O
O
NC3
S(
D
Q
CD-
o `< .
N
CQ.
D
o- '
CD
CD
7
c
3
v
CQ
N
O<
Ill
N
O
N
O
N
CA
CD
0
IV
CCD
Q
N
CD
Q
CD
CCOO_,
v
0
CD
O'
O
OL
D
O
rt—
COC
00
0
Oh
o
i—=
N
o
3
m
O
N
c°
c
o =
CD
Q
D
Oc
D
C
c
3 D
W
C
D
v
CD =
cn
0
O =+-
CD = `<
Q
no_'
5'
N
3,
c
cn
c
00 (
D
p ' —
Q
O
C-)
v
v
a)
v
0O
cl
5
I
c (
D
F <
u
D
Ort
O
w =
h (
DQ
Q
S
O (
D
O
V <
O
n
3 (
D (
D
CD <
G
CL --
h
O
n
c
D
N
Q
O
o.
p
n
CD
O
C
D<
m
Cfl'
D
Ic
D (
n
0
0-
0
Qwc-
voo
m
c
o
55.
3
C
Qc
p-
vcn
v
CD
IIx
Q
cnc-
0'
cDm
0m
n
cJn
o
o
Q
v
o
w -, -
DLn.
Z) cn
O (
D
Q
3 <
Q
v
TN
Q _
D
Q
Do
O -"
CQ
CD
3
CD
Q
CD
O
m
Q
35o
hm
rr (
D
o(
D—
c (
DCD
rD"
D (
DQ-
Fn'
Q3
rr
0
aQ
cn
z
cn
D-
o0D mo
c-
cD
o
c
P:
w
D
mQv
m
v
CU)
0
0=-,
3
oOO
CD<-
O
CD
c
m
C-
Z3
o
CD
3
x
CD
Cn
DcZoo -
O(
Qo0CL
D
O
N
D
rUQ
U)
p (
D
v
r*
O
v
i
n
v
Q
cn
U)
CD
cn (
D - (
c
D
cn
m
v
D o
cc
N
n
cnc:)
O
O
N
E3 cn0 EZCDCD
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 5 of 50
The applicant has applied for the following land use permits:
Zone Change 21-01
Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.020, amendment to the City's
Zoning Map may be initiated by the Planning Commission or the City Council,
whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning
practice justifies such action. Zone Change 21-01 will amend the Zoning Map of
the subject site from GSP to GSP-MU.
Specific Plan Amendment 21-01
Per Section 65453(a) of the California Government Code, a specific plan shall be
prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a general plan, except
that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be
amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body. Per Rosemead
Municipal Code Section 17.150.040, adoption of, or amendment to, a specific
plan relating to land use may be initiated by the City or by submittal of a Master
Plan. When initiated by a master plan, the person shall file a petition with the
City and pay a filing fee as required in Chapter 17.120 of [Title 17]. The
applicant submitted a Specific Plan Amendment (Specific Plan Amendment 21-
01) to amend the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan zoning district of the subject site
from GSP to GSP-MU.
Development Standards
Staff has verified that the proposed development would be in compliance with most of
the applicable development standards of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, as
demonstrated in the following table, however, the application of community benefits
have been applied to the project, which allows deviations from development standards
for density, floor area ratio (FAR), and building commercial/residential land use ratio.
The details of the Community Benefits Program are described on page 7.
Development
Feature Required ` Proposed
Total Lot Size of
Development 10,000 square feet (minimum) 41,235 square feet
Site
Maximum density without the provision of Community
Benefits: 25 dwelling units/gross acre 75 dwelling units/gross acre
Density Maximum density with the provision of Community Benefits: Community Benefits applied80dwellingunits/gross acre
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) without the provision of Community 2.7FloorAreaRatioBenefits: 1.6 maximum
FAR) Community Benefits appliedFloorAreaRatio (FAR) with the provision of Community
Benefits: 3.0 maximum
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 6 of 50
Public Sidewalk 12'-0' with 7'-0" wide sidewalk (clear zone) and 5'-0" wide 12'-0' with 7'-0" wide sidewalk
clear zone) and 5'-0" wideparkway (amenity zone) parkway (amenity zone
Front Setback Nonresidential: No Minimum Zero (0) feet
No minimum unless required by Community
Interior Lot Line Development Director, Public Works Director, Zero (0) feetSetbackCityManagerorhis/her designee, or other
reviewing agency.
No minimum unless required by Community
Side Street Development Director, Public Works Director,
Setback City Manager or his/her designee, or other Zero (0) feet
reviewing agency.
All residential, commercial, and mixed-use developments 33'-1"
Rear Setback shall have a rear variable height when abutting R-1 or R-2
Variable zones. Variable height requirement
Height) This specifies a setback minimum of 25' from the property met, please refer to Section A
line, increasing at a 60 degree angle from that point. on Sheet A-400
75'-0" 75'-0"
Height An additional 5'-0" beyond the height limit is allowed for The proposed elevator shaftuniquearchitecturalelementsasdeterminedbytheextendsanadditional5'-0" Community Development Director.
For residential developments, the project shall provide no
less than 1.0 standard sized parking space/dwelling unit.
Total required residential parking: 45 parking spaces 45 units = 45 secured parking
spaces
Parking In addition to the residential spaces described 45*(0.5) = 23 secured parkingResidential — above, 0.5 standard sized parking space/dwelling unit is
Includes Guest required guest parking. spaces
Parking)
Total required residential guest parking: 23 parking spaces Total Provided: 68 secured
parking spaces
Provide 1.0 standard size
parking space
per 400 square feet of floor
The greater of: area
Parking
Live/Work — Residential: 1.0 standard sized parking space and 0.5 30 Live/Work units (Live) = 30
secured parking spaces
Includes Guest standard sized guest parking space
Parking) Nonresidential: Provide 1.0 standard size parking space 30 Live/Work units (Work) = 30
per 400 square feet of floor area secured/unsecured parking
spaces
Total Provided: 60 Parking
spaces
Retail: 1.0 standard sized parking space per 400 square feet
Parking
Commercial)
of floor area
16 parking spaces
Total Required: 16 parking spaces
10% of required off-street parking
Bicycle Parking 14 bicycle parking spaces
144 (10%) = 14 bicycle parking spaces
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 7 of 50
Community Benefits Program
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan has provisions for community benefit incentives,
which allows developers and property owners to increase the development potential if
community benefits applied to the development application, constructed as part of the
project development, and operated in perpetuity. Restrictions and/or covenants are
required to be recorded on the property to ensure the benefits or amenities provided to
earn the Community Benefit Incentive are maintained in perpetuity. The Garvey Avenue
Community Benefit Program is applicable to all parcels within the Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan corridor. The Garvey Avenue Community Benefit Program is based on a
point system. Each community benefit type is assigned a number of Community Benefit
points. A project may earn points from a single or multiple categories, depending on the
project applicant's preference. The number of Community Benefit points earned is then
translated into the increased density, FAR, or a deviation in the building
commercial/residential ratio. The increase varies by zone and land use type.
As shown in the table below, the proposed project includes five community benefit
incentives with a total of 131 earned points. The earned points allows the project a 3.0
FAR, a density of up to 80 dwelling units/acre, and a deviation in the building
commercial/residential land use ratio to 70% Residential Use and 30% Nonresidential
Use, compared to a 1.6 FAR, 25 dwelling units/acre, and 65% Residential Use and 35%
Nonresidential Use, respectively. The project proposes an FAR of 2.7, a density of 75
du/acre, and a building commercial/residential land use ratio of 68% Residential and
32% Commercial, as allowed for the site with the proposed community benefit
incentives.
Type of
Benefit
Usable Public Open Space: 5% of lot size
Maximum
Points.
Earned
Points
FAR
Earned
Usable Public Open Space:
Lot
Consolidation
Total Required: 2,062 square feet 2,593 square feet
35
Usable Private Common Usable Private Common
Open Space Open Space: 150 square feet/dwelling unit Open Space: 17,495 square
feet
Friendly
Total Required: 12,938 square feet
50 50
Private Open Space: 9,633
Development
Private Open Space: 75 square feet/dwelling unit square feet
Total Required: 5,625 square feet
Building 68% Residential and
Commercial/
Residential 65% Residential and 35% CommercialL 32% Commercial
Ratio Community Benefits applied
Community Benefits Program
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan has provisions for community benefit incentives,
which allows developers and property owners to increase the development potential if
community benefits applied to the development application, constructed as part of the
project development, and operated in perpetuity. Restrictions and/or covenants are
required to be recorded on the property to ensure the benefits or amenities provided to
earn the Community Benefit Incentive are maintained in perpetuity. The Garvey Avenue
Community Benefit Program is applicable to all parcels within the Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan corridor. The Garvey Avenue Community Benefit Program is based on a
point system. Each community benefit type is assigned a number of Community Benefit
points. A project may earn points from a single or multiple categories, depending on the
project applicant's preference. The number of Community Benefit points earned is then
translated into the increased density, FAR, or a deviation in the building
commercial/residential ratio. The increase varies by zone and land use type.
As shown in the table below, the proposed project includes five community benefit
incentives with a total of 131 earned points. The earned points allows the project a 3.0
FAR, a density of up to 80 dwelling units/acre, and a deviation in the building
commercial/residential land use ratio to 70% Residential Use and 30% Nonresidential
Use, compared to a 1.6 FAR, 25 dwelling units/acre, and 65% Residential Use and 35%
Nonresidential Use, respectively. The project proposes an FAR of 2.7, a density of 75
du/acre, and a building commercial/residential land use ratio of 68% Residential and
32% Commercial, as allowed for the site with the proposed community benefit
incentives.
Type of
Benefit Basis for Calculating Points Maximum
Points.
Earned
Points
FAR
Earned
Density
Earned
Lot
Consolidation 2 lots consolidated into 1 parcel 35 35
Family More than 10% of housing units as three
Friendly bedroom or larger units. 50 50
Development
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 8 of 50
Floor Plan
The project proposes three commercial (nonresidential) units with a total of 6,346
square feet on the first floor and 75 residential units on the first through seventh floors.
Each commercial unit will total approximately 2,000 square feet.
Of the 75 residential units, 30 are live/work units, including 4 live/work units on the
ground level, 5 live/work units on the second floor, 7 live/work units on the third floor
and 14 live/work units on the fourth floor. The size of the live/work units ranges from
1,041 square feet to 1,494 square feet. In addition, there are 11 different live/work floor
1 point for each 15 sq. ft./unit of common
area open space above the required
minimum per the Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan, providing the common area open
space contains at least two of the following:
tot lot play equipment (swings, slide,
climbing structure), community garden, or
library.
In order to provide for significant
opportunities for national and regional retail
Nonresidential tenants, a bonus shall be granted if the
component of nonresidential component of a mixed-use
Mixed-use site provides for tenant space with an 20 20
development average size of 2,000 s.f. or more (minimum
sites size of 800 s.f. for each tenant space), then
the project will receive a 5% increase in
residential to make the split 70% residential
to 30% commercial.
2 Points: For every 1 standard sized parking
space marked for public use and
permanently available for public use,
Public Parking provided the project meets the minimum 50 6 — 3 stalls
number of required public and private
spaces, per this Specific Plan or the City of
Rosemead
40 Points: If 50% or more of total building
roof is an accessible, operational eco roof.
30 Points: LEEDTM Platinum, CALGreen
Tier 2, or equivalent (third -party certification
required)
20 Points: LEEDTM Gold, CALGREEN Tier
Sustainable 1, or equivalent (third -party certification 20—
Design required) 70 CALGreen
Tier 1
The increased density or intensity will be
granted to the qualifying building not the
entire development or site area.
The project will be conditioned to ensure
compliance and construction in accordance
with LEED Platinum, LEED Gold, CALGreen
Tier 2, or CALGreen Tier 1.
Total 131 3.0 80
Points du/acre
Floor Plan
The project proposes three commercial (nonresidential) units with a total of 6,346
square feet on the first floor and 75 residential units on the first through seventh floors.
Each commercial unit will total approximately 2,000 square feet.
Of the 75 residential units, 30 are live/work units, including 4 live/work units on the
ground level, 5 live/work units on the second floor, 7 live/work units on the third floor
and 14 live/work units on the fourth floor. The size of the live/work units ranges from
1,041 square feet to 1,494 square feet. In addition, there are 11 different live/work floor
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 9 of 50
plans proposed, each with a living room, kitchen, bedrooms, bathrooms, laundry rooms,
and closets. The details of the live/work units are provided below:
Unit Type No. of Units Square Feet
No. of
Bedrooms
Live Square
Feet
Work Square
Feet
2A-1 6 1,066 2 301 765
2A-2 3 1,160 2 331 829
2 B -L 3 1,163 2 333 830
2B -R 2 1,163 2 333 830
2C 2 1,235 2 309 926
2G 1 1,041 2 296 745
2BR-LOFT 4 1,346 2 673 673
3A 2 1,442 3 450 992
3AA 2 1,442 3 450 992
3B 4 1,337 3 480 857
3C 1 1,494 1 3 1 512 1 982
Total 30
The project also proposes 45 apartments on the fifth through seventh floors with 16
apartments on the fifth floor, 15 apartments on the sixth floor and 14 apartments on the
seventh floor. The size of the apartment units ranges from 922 square feet to 1,784
square feet. In addition, there are 15 different floor plans proposed, each with a living
room, kitchen, bedrooms, bathrooms, laundry rooms, and closets. The details of the
apartment units are provided below:
Unit Type No. of Units Square Feet No. of Bedrooms
2A-1 10 1,066 2
2A-2 5 1,160 2
213-1- 3 1,163 2
2C 6 1,235 2
2D 2 1,223 2
2D-1 2 1,173 2
2E 1 922 2
2F 1 995 2
2G 3 1,041 2
2H 1 1,127 2
3B 5 1 1,337 1 3
0 -
D . (
n •(
Q
0 "
Z3 (
DD
0
0
0
m_
0
O
O
O
0
0
O
m
O
O(
n
cOn -
0zy
m
m
m
CD
O
CD< <
O
h
v
CD
O
m
h
O
O
D'"
5
iU
h
a (
j
D
CD (
D
Q
m
cn
r <
m
cn
m
CD
Cnn (
D
3
m
O
N'
E
a0
Q
he
cn
0
y
c (
D
m
CD
m
0
v
v
0
m
m
Al
0
O.
0-
a -
ccnn
v <.
O
n
O
O
ZT
COD ((
D
m
5'
70
30-
m
cn -
0-
scncn'.
SU
IV
m
v
cn
3CD
h
cQ
cn
0.
CL
C:
O
n
mzT
Qcn (
D- _
O
Q
O
ccncn (
D `< ,
a
O
O =
3
sz
cr _
0-
DCD
iS2.
QW < <
O
O(
Q
OD
O
N
N<. (
n
Uri
m
Q +
O
O
ccnn
0-
N
CCD
m (
Q
v
n
v(
OD
a ,-+
0
U)
cn
O
c(
Dn
Q-
Q
O
CSD
w
r*
v .-
cn —
cn (
p
O
Q -
m -, -
O
w
o
W
v
o
m
M
cn—
M0
Cc= —
v, =
m (
n
v
c
v
o
zTv (
Q
O
h
Q-
c
m ,
D-
0
a)
r,
O
0
O
0
Q
Ocn
0-
CD
0
c0,
0 (
CDD
Q
m
O
O (
j
m
U)
CSD
3
0-
O
Q
0
cn
O
0- <
x
Q
0
0
0
CSD
m
00
N
Z3
O (
Q
c
O
O
CD -
Q70
a
O
0-
v
a-
U)
m•
v(
nWo3
Q
mMW0-
0
cn
0
O
m
ChD
m
v
M
0-
m
v
00 <
v
700 ^(
Q
CL `
novo°='
h'
cn
0ccmm'
Q
oQ3
Q
cn
c
m
D-
M
m
o
ate-
Z3Crvhog(
DD'
CD
E
c
o
D
o (
D
0- ((
DD
3 (
DD
m-
cn
m = O
m O_ O D Q m O zTD 01 Och ma xmQ m a - S= Q D zT O 5' mx v sz
ca
n
m
CD
cc
No
0
Ocn
N
cn CDCD
o
D
m
0
0
v 4,
w
00
W
N
O
v
A
P
w
Cl)
w
ca
n
m
CD
cc
No
0
Ocn
N
cn CDCD
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 11 of 50
includes drought tolerant shrubs and ground cover, accent street trees, accent benches,
and decorative planter pots in a five-foot wide parkway amenity zone along both
Prospect Avenue and Garvey Avenue that are adjacent to the site. The sidewalks
between the proposed mixed-use building and the parkway amenity zone includes
exposed aggregate banding, light colored concrete with medium wash finish and accent
pavers. Landscaping is proposed for the courtyards of the fourth through seventh floors
of the building and includes 24"x36" high planter walls. In addition to landscaping, all of
the courtyards include outdoor dining tables and chairs and depending on the floor, the
courtyards include outdoor lounge sofas and chairs, a natural gas fire pit, view
bar/counter with stools along with other amenities.
The applicant has proposed to construct a decorative masonry wall along the north and
east property lines. Since the perimeter wall along the north property line abuts a
residential use, the first 20 feet of the wall must be 4'-0" high. The remaining portion of
the wall and the wall along the east property line is proposed at 6'-0" high. In addition, to
soften the appearance of the wall on the north property line, vines will be incorporated
and planted six feet apart.
Lighting
The project site is currently vacant and does not generate any light or glare. The
proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare on the site compared
to the existing condition. The project site is surrounded by existing commercial and
residential development. The sources of light generated by the project include City
required streetlights, interior and exterior lighting of the seven -story mixed-use building,
landscape lighting, lighting in the parking areas within the building, and headlights of the
cars that enter and leave the site at night. The wall along the north side of the mixed-
use building along with the proposed six-foot decorative masonry wall along the north
project boundary would eliminate headlights from the cars in the ground level parking lot
from shinning onto the yards and residences of the residents adjacent to and north of
the project. In addition, all private lighting associated with the project would be required
to meet and comply with all applicable lighting provisions in Rosemead Municipal Code
Chapter 17.88. To ensure that the proposed exterior building lighting plan does not
significantly impact existing adjacent and surrounding land uses, the following measure
is recommended to reduce off-site lighting impacts to less than significant:
Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a
lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates the following
light reducing measures as applicable:
o Select lighting fixtures with more -precise optical control and/or different
lighting distribution.
o Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting
fixtures.
o Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures.
o Select lower -output lamp/lamp technologies.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 12 of 50
o A combination of the above.
Off -Street Parking and Access
Vehicular access to the project site is provided via a 25 -foot -wide driveway located
along the north property line, from Prospect Avenue. The driveway provides an
entrance to the ground level parking area and access to ramps that provide vehicular
access to parking on the second and third floor parking areas. All delivery vehicles for
the nonresidential space on the ground level would enter the site from Prospect Avenue
and park in a designated loading area on the ground level for site deliveries. Delivery
trucks would be restricted to two axle trucks. Delivery trucks would not be allowed to
park along either Prospect Avenue or Garvey Avenue.
Per RMC Table 17.21.030.1 (Garvey Avenue Specific Plan District Development
Standards), the following off-street parking requirements would apply to the residential
and nonresidential (commercial) uses in the GSP-MU zone:
Residential: One standard sized parking space and 0.5 standard sized guest
parking space
Nonresidential & Restaurants with 2,500 square feet floor area or less: One
parking space per 400 square feet of floor area
In January 2021, the City Council approved an interpretation of Live/Work Units within
the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. Since the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan does not
clearly identify the off-street parking requirement for live/work units, the City Council
determined that the off-street parking requirement would be the greater of the two uses.
This will ensure that off-street parking will not be impacted by live/work units in mixed-
use developments.
Based on the off-street parking requirements, a total of 144 parking spaces are required
for the proposed project. The applicant has proposed to provide 147 total parking
spaces, which includes 110 standard spaces, 32 compact spaces, 4 handicap
accessible spaces, and one loading space. The project also proposes 14 bicycle
spaces. Off-street parking spaces for the residential use is separated from
nonresidential (commercial) parking and will be accessed through a secure gated
entrance. The project proposes to utilize the three remaining parking spaces for public
parking.
Traffic
A traffic study was prepared for the project by Ganddini Group, Inc. Based on the traffic
study, the proposed project would not result in any new significant traffic impact impacts
or mitigation measures compared to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan TIA/EIR. The
proposed project is forecasted to generate fewer than 50 net new AM or PM peak hour
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 13 of 50
trips and is therefore exempt from preparation of a Level of Service analysis based on
the City -established guidelines. The nonresidential component of the proposed project
also satisfies the City -established project type screening for local serving retail and may
be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact. In addition, the proposed
project satisfies the City -established low VMT area screening criteria. Therefore, the
proposed Project satisfies the City of Rosemead VMT screening criteria and may be
presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.
The City of Rosemead's Contract Traffic Engineer has reviewed the traffic study and
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and has deemed it acceptable. In
addition, it was determined that the project would not have any significant operational
traffic impacts.
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Text Amendment
To be consistent with the Freeway Corridor Mixed -Use (FCMU) Overlay, which was
approved by the City Council on September 7, 2021, and assist the development
community in Rosemead with relief for businesses that are facing economic hardship
from the COVID-19 pandemic, including the Prospect Villa project applicant, the City
proposes a text amendment to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and Chapter 17.21
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Zoning District), permitting sit-down restaurants with a
minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an AUP for beer/wine sales in the
GSP and GSP-MU zones, provided that a valid license from California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) is obtained. The Zoning Code defines a sit-down
restaurant as, "an establishment engaged in the business of selling food and
beverages, including alcoholic beverages, prepared on site for primarily on-site
consumption. Food and beverages are served to the customer at a fixed location (i.e.,
booth, counter, or table). Food and beverages are ordered from a menu. Customers
typically pay for food and beverages after service and/or consumption. The sale or
service of sandwiches, whether prepared in the kitchen or made elsewhere and heated
on the premises, or snack foods, shall not constitute a sit-down restaurant."
The AUP process would still be reviewed by both the Public Safety Department and
Community Development Department and require the typical conditions of approval that
are applied to alcohol-related Conditional Use Permits (CUPs). The amendment is
intended to assist the City's restaurant business community that are facing economic
hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic. The AUP process is administrative, approved
by the Director of Community Development, and could be completed at a fraction of the
time and cost of a CUP.
This proposed amendment would continue to require a CUP for all other on-site alcohol
sales for sit-down restaurants less than 6,000 square feet. In addition, the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan would also continue to allow regional or national chain restaurants
larger than 6,000 square feet to serve alcohol without a CUP in the GSP-MU zone,
provided that a valid license from the ABC is obtained. Furthermore, a sit-down
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 14 of 50
restaurant would also have to meet the requirements of RMC 17.30.040 for alcohol
beverage sales and RMC 17.04.050 for the definition of a sit-down restaurant.
The text amendments to Figure 3.3 Land Use Table of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan
and Table 17.21.020.1 of the Rosemead Municipal Code are attached as Exhibits "G"
and "H", respectively.
MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS
Zone Change
Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060(B), amendments to the Official
Zoning Map may be approved only if all the following findings are first made. Below are
the findings and staffs recommendations on why such findings are met:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan.
RECOMMENDED FINDING: The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan was adopted in
2018 and its requirements for adoption included updating the General Plan to
eliminate inconsistencies between the two planning documents. The Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan amended the General Plan designation for approximately
88 parcels to support the development of over 1.18 million square feet of
commercial development, 892 dwelling units, 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. The proposed site is located
within Garvey Avenue Specific Plan General Plan land use designation. The
project only proposes to change the zone from GSP to GSP-MU.
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
RECOMMENDED FINDING: The subject site is located within the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan. The subject site consists of two parcels totaling
approximately 0.95 acres of vacant land. The proposed amendment would
change the zoning district within the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan from GSP to
GSP-MU for the construction of residential/commercial mixed-use development.
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan was developed to create an attractive and
desirable neighborhood "main street" focusing on creating a vibrant corridor with
visible pedestrian activity.
The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA). The Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 15 of 50
the "project" may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of
the analysis within the Initial Study, the City has concluded that although the
proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case as mitigation measures have been
incorporated.
C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions
of this Zoning Code.
RECOMMENDED FINDING: The proposed zone change will amend the Zoning
Map from GSP to GSP-MU. The GSP-MU allows vertical mixed-use, where
commercial uses are on the ground floor, with residential uses above. The
proposed project meets the GSP-MU development standards and would be in
compliance with the applicable development standards of the Zoning Code.
D. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating
characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and
emergency vehicle access, and public services and utilities and is served by
highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and
quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to ensure that the
proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise
constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the
property is located.
RECOMMENDED FINDING: The subject site is located within the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan. The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan amended the Zoning
Map and General Plan land use designations for approximately 88 parcels to
support the development of over 1.18 million square feet of commercial
development, 892 dwelling units, 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. The site would be physically suited for
provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public services and
utilities.
In addition, the applicant has obtained will -serve letters from Golden State Water
Company and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. In addition, a traffic
study was prepared for the project by Ganddini Group, Inc. Based on the traffic
study, the proposed project would not result in any new significant traffic impact
impacts or mitigation measures compared to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan
TIA/EIR. The proposed project is forecasted to generate fewer than 50 net new
AM or PM peak hour trips and is therefore exempt from preparation of a Level of
Service analysis based on the City -established guidelines. The nonresidential
component of the proposed project also satisfies the City -established project type
screening for local serving retail and may be presumed to result in a less than
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 16 of 50
significant VMT impact. In addition, the proposed project satisfies the City -
established low VMT area screening criteria. Therefore, the proposed Project
satisfies the City of Rosemead VMT screening criteria and may be presumed to
result in a less than significant VMT impact. The City of Rosemead's Contract
Traffic Engineer has reviewed the traffic study and Initial Study/Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration and has deemed it acceptable. Furthermore, it was
determined that the project would not have any significant operational traffic
impacts.
Specific Plan Amendment
Per Section 65453(a) of the California Government Code, a specific plan shall be
prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a general plan, except that a
specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as
often as deemed necessary by the legislative body. Per Rosemead Municipal Code
Section 17.152.060(A), amendments to the General Plan may be approved only if all
the following findings are first made. Below are the findings and staff's
recommendations on why such findings are met:
A. The amendment is internally consistent with all other provisions of the General
Plan.
RECOMMENDED FINDING: The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan was adopted in
2018 and its requirements for adoption included updating the General Plan to
eliminate inconsistencies between the two planning documents. The proposed
project continues to be internally consistent with all other provisions of the
General Plan. The project proposes to change the zone from GSP to GSP-MU
and to remain within the buildout development capacity of 1.18 million square
feet of commercial development and 892 dwelling units.
In addition, the project proposes a text amendment to permit sit-down restaurants
with a minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an AUP for beer/wine
sales in the GSP to GSP-MU zones. Sit-down restaurants and alcohol licensing
are established uses in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience or welfare of the City.
RECOMMENDED FINDING: The subject site is located within the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan. The subject site consists of two parcels totaling
approximately 0.95 acres of vacant land. The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan was
developed to create an attractive and desirable neighborhood "main street"
focusing on creating a vibrant corridor with visible pedestrian activity. The
proposed amendment would change the zoning district within the Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan from GSP to GSP-MU, for the construction of
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 17 of 50
residential/commercial mixed-use development. In addition, the project proposes
a text amendment to permit sit-down restaurants with a minimum requirement of
1,000 square feet to obtain an AUP for beer/wine sales in the GSP to GSP-MU
zones. Sit-down restaurants and alcohol licensing are established uses in the
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA). The Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether
the "project" may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of
the analysis within the Initial Study, the City has concluded that although the
proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case as mitigation measures have been
incorporated.
C. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating
characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and
emergency vehicle access, and public services and utilities and is served by
highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and
quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to ensure that the
proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or
otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in
which the property is located.
RECOMMENDED FINDING: The subject site is located within the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan. The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan amended the Zoning
Map and General Plan land use designations for approximately 88 parcels to
support the development of over 1.18 million square feet of commercial
development, 892 dwelling units, 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. The site would be physically suited for
provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public services and
utilities.
In addition, the applicant has obtained will -serve letters from Golden State Water
Company and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. In addition, a traffic
study was prepared for the project by Ganddini Group, Inc. Based on the traffic
study, the proposed project would not result in any new significant traffic impact
impacts or mitigation measures compared to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan
TIA/EIR. The proposed project is forecasted to generate fewer than 50 net new
AM or PM peak hour trips and is therefore exempt from preparation of a Level of
Service analysis based on the City -established guidelines. The nonresidential
component of the proposed project also satisfies the City -established project type
screening for local serving retail and may be presumed to result in a less than
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 18 of 50
significant VMT impact. In addition, the proposed project satisfies the City -
established low VMT area screening criteria. Therefore, the proposed Project
satisfies the City of Rosemead VMT screening criteria and may be presumed to
result in a less than significant VMT impact. The City of Rosemead's Contract
Traffic Engineer has reviewed the traffic study and Initial Study/Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration and has deemed it acceptable. Furthermore, it was
determined that the project would not have any significant operational traffic
impacts.
The proposed text amendment to permit sit-down restaurants with a minimum
requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an AUP for beer/wine sales in the
GSP to GSP-MU zones would require review by both the Public Safety
Department and Community Development Department and require the typical
conditions of approval that are applied to alcohol-related CUPs. The amendment
is intended to assist the City's restaurant business community that are facing
economic hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic. The AUP process is
administrative, approved by the Director of Community Development, and could
be completed at a fraction of the time and cost of a CUP. Sit-down restaurants
and alcohol licensing are established uses in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
On February 16, 2022, forty-three (43) notices were sent to property owners within a
300 -feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public
locations, on-site, published in the Rosemead Reader, and filed with the Los Angeles
County Clerk.
Prepared by:
011
Lily Valenzuela
Planning and Economic Development Manager
Submitted b
Ben '
Assistant City Manager/Director of Community Development
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 19 of 50
EXHIBITS:
A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-02
B. Draft City Council Resolution 2022-18
C. Draft City Council Ordinance No. 1008
D. Project Conditions of Approval
E. Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Appendices in USB Drive)
F. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
G. Amendments to Figure 3.3 Land Use Table of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan
H. Amendments to Table 17.21.020.1 of the Rosemead Municipal Code
I. Architectural Plans
J. Assessor's Parcel Map (APNs: 5286-022-009 and 5286-022-010)
Attachment D
Planning Commission Minutes
dated March 7, 2022
Attachment E
Planning Commission Resolution 22-02
Attachment F
City Council Staff Report,
dated March 22, 2022 (without attachments)
City Council Meeting
March 22, 2022
Page 3 of 4
2. Introduce the first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 1008 (Attachment "A"),
approving Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01; and
3. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2022-18 (Attachment `B") for the adoption of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
file the Notice of Determination for the project.
FISCAL IMPACT — None
STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT — Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01 are
consistent with the Land Use and Zoning Goal of the City's 2030 Strategic Plan (Goal H) as the
actions include:
Explore adding residential uses as permitted uses along major commercial corridors and
specifically Valley Boulevard; and
Identify the appropriate planning tools to encourage mixed use development that includes
housing along the commercial corridors.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a
300' radius public hearing notice to forty-three (43) property owners, publication in the
newspaper on March 10, 2022, postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations, and on the
subject site.
Prepared by:
44 -
Lily . Valenzuela
Planning and Economic Development Manager
Submitted by:
Ben Kim
Actin ity Manager
Attachment G
Mitigated Negative Declaration, along with Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program
Appendices on USB Drive)
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE PROJECT
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 21-01, ZONE CHANGE 21-01
Lead Agency:
City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
(626) 569-2140
Project Proponent:
Del Mar Property, LLC
120 E. Valley Boulevard
San Gabriel, CA 91776
(626) 307-0062
Environmental Consultant:
Phil Martin & Associates
1809 E. Dyer Road, Suite 301
Santa Ana, California 92705
(949) 454-1800
February 16, 2022
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page i
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
TABLE of CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1 Project Title ............................................................................................................... 1
2. Lead Agency Name and Address .............................................................................. 1
3. Contact Person and Phone Number .......................................................................... 1
4. Project Location ........................................................................................................ 1
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ....................................................................... 1
6. General Plan Designation ......................................................................................... 1
7 Zoning ....................................................................................................................... 1
8. Description of Project ................................................................................................ 1
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ........................................................................ 12
10. Other Public Agencies whose Approval Is Required ................................................ 12
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated
With the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21080.3.1? ........................................................................................ 12
12. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................. 16
13. Determination .......................................................................................................... 16
14. Issues ..................................................................................................................... 18
15. Explanation of Issues .............................................................................................. 26
I. Aesthetics ....................................................................................................... 26
II. Agricultural Resources .................................................................................... 41
III. Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 42
IV. Biological Resources ...................................................................................... 52
V. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 53
VI. Energy ............................................................................................................ 56
VII. Geology and Soils .......................................................................................... 58
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................... 60
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................. 62
X. Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................... 64
XI. Land Use ........................................................................................................ 69
XII. Mineral Resources .......................................................................................... 73
XIII. Noise .............................................................................................................. 74
XIV. Population and Housing .................................................................................. 84
XV. Public Services ............................................................................................... 85
XVI. Recreation ...................................................................................................... 86
XVII. Transportation ................................................................................................ 86
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 93
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................... 95
XX. Wildfire ........................................................................................................... 96
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................ 97
Appendices
Appendix A - Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Report
Appendix B - Geotechnical Report
Appendix C - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix D – Hydrology Report and Low Impact Calculations
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page ii
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Appendix E – Noise Report
Appendix F - Traffic Report
LIST of FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Regional Map ............................................................................................................ 2
2. Local Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................... 3
3. Aerial Photo .............................................................................................................. 4
4. USGS Topo Map ....................................................................................................... 5
5. Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Zoning Map ................................................................ 6
6. Ground Floor Landscape Plan ................................................................................... 8
7. Second – Fourth Courtyard Landscape Plans ........................................................... 9
8. Fifth - Seventh Floors Landscape Plans .................................................................. 10
9. Site Plan .................................................................................................................. 11
10. On-Site Land Use .................................................................................................... 13
11. Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................... 14
12. Photo Orientation Map ............................................................................................ 15
13. Project Rendering ................................................................................................... 28
14. North Building Elevation Rendering ......................................................................... 38
15. South and East Exterior Light Fixtures .................................................................... 39
16. North and West Exterior Light Fixtures .................................................................... 40
17. Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................ 76
18. Cumulative Project Location Map ............................................................................ 99
LIST of TABLES
Table Page
1. Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Development Standards – Project Compliance ......... 30
2. Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................................ 45
3. Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants ............................................................... 47
4. Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2017-2020) .......................................................... 48
5. SCAQMD Daily Emission Thresholds of Significance .............................................. 49
6. Construction Activity Equipment Fleet – Proposed Project ...................................... 49
7. Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) ............... 50
8. LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day) ................................................................ 52
9. Daily Operational Emissions (2023) ........................................................................ 52
10. Construction GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e) ................................................... 62
11. Annual Operations GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e) ......................................... 62
12. Project Community Benefit Points ........................................................................... 70
13. Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits ......................................................................... 75
14. Short-Term Measured Noise Levels (dBA) .............................................................. 76
15. Construction Equipment Noise Levels ..................................................................... 78
16. Construction Noise Exposure at Adjoining Sensitive Uses (dBA LEQ) .................... 78
Environmental Checklist
For CEQA Compliance
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page iii
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
17. Traffic and Associated Noise Levels for Existing and Future Time Frame ............... 80
18. Traffic Noise Impact Comparison ............................................................................ 81
19. Human Response to Transient Vibration ................................................................. 82
20. FTA and Caltrans Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ........... 83
21. Estimated Vibration Levels During Project Construction .......................................... 83
22. Existing TAZ 2165-1 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Trip Generation ........................ 87
23. TAZ 2165-1 Parcel Matrix ....................................................................................... 88
24. Existing TAZ 2165-1 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Trip Generation – Project APNs88
25. Project Trip Generation ........................................................................................... 89
26. Project Trip Generation Comparison to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan TIA/EIR ....... 90
27. Estimated Project Water Consumption .................................................................... 95
28. Cumulative Projects ................................................................................................ 98
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 1
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Project Title: Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
(626) 569-2140
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Lily Valenzuela, Planning & Economic Development Manager
(626) 569-2142
4. Project Location: The project is located in the City of Rosemead as shown in Figure 1, Regional Map.
More specifically, the project is located at 7539 and 7545 Garvey Avenue (APN Nos.
5286-022-009 and 5286-022-010) as shown in Figure 2, Vicinity Map. An aerial
photograph of the site and surrounding area is shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photo.
Figure 4, Topography Map, that shows the topography on the site and surrounding
areas.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Del Mar Property LLC
120 E. Valley Boulevard
San Gabriel, CA 91776
(626) 307-0062
6. General Plan Designation: The project site is designated Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) by the
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. The project is requesting a specific plan amendment to Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-Use (GSP-MU).
7. Zoning: The project site is zoned Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) as shown in Figure 5. The project
is requesting a zone change to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-Use (GSP-MU).
8. Description of Project: The project site totals approximately 0.946 gross acres (41,235 square feet) and
includes two parcels (APN Nos. 5286-022-009 and 5286-022-010). The site is currently vacant.
The project proposes a seven-story, mixed-use development that totals 97,775 square feet. The project
proposes 6,346 square feet of nonresidential use on the first floor and 75 residential units on the first
through seventh floors. Of the 75 residential units, 30 are live-work units, including 4 live-work units on
the ground level, 5 live-work units on the second floor, 7 live-work units on the third floor and 14 live-work
units on the fourth floor. The project proposes 45 apartments on the fifth through seventh floors with 16
apartments on the fifth floor, 15 apartments on the sixth floor and 14 apartments on the seventh floor.
The project includes 17 two-bedroom live-work units, 34 two-bedroom apartments, 4 two-bedroom loft
live-work units, 9 three-bedroom live-work units, 10 three-bedroom apartments and 1 four-bedroom
apartment.
The project proposes a total of 110,496 square feet of residential, commercial and access and hallway
space on the 41,235 square foot site that results in a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.7 compared to a maximum
allowed FAR of 3.0 with the allowed provisions of community benefits by the Garvey Avenue
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Figure 12Trip Distribution
N
Source: Stantec
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Source: Phil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Figure 1Regional Map
N
*
Site Location
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Figure 12Trip Distribution
N
Source: Stantec
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Source: Google Maps, 2017
Figure 2
Local Vicinity Map
Project Site
N
Project
Site
Figure 2
Local Vicinity Map
Source: Google Maps
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Figure 3
Aerial Photo
Project
Site
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Figure 12Trip Distribution
N
Source: Stantec
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Figure 4
USGS Topo Map
Project
Site
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN, FEBRUARY 2018 3 - 3
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Figure 3.1 Zoning
Figure 5
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Zoning Map
Project Site
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 7
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Specific Plan. The building footprints covers 32,672 square feet of the project site, or approximately 79.2
percent of the site.
The project proposes 12,547 square feet of landscaping, or 30 percent of the site. The project
landscaping includes drought tolerant shrubs and ground cover, accent street trees, accent benches, and
decorative planter pots in a 5-foot wide parkway amenity zone along both Prospect Avenue and Garvey
Avenue that are adjacent to the site. The sidewalks between the proposed mixed-use building and the
parkway amenity zone includes exposed aggregate banding, light colored concrete with medium wash
finish and accent pavers. Landscaping is proposed for the courtyards of the fourth through seventh floors
of the building and includes 24”x36” high planter walls. In addition to landscaping, all of the courtyards
include outdoor dining tables and chairs and depending on the floor, the courtyards include outdoor
lounge sofas and chairs, a natural gas fire pit, view bar/counter with stools along with other amenities.
The ground floor landscape plan is shown in Figure 6, the second through fourth courtyard landscape
plans are shown in Figure 7 and the fifth through the seventh courtyard landscape plans are shown in
Figure 8.
The project proposes 147 parking spaces, including 110 standard spaces, 32 compact spaces, 4
handicap accessible spaces and 1 loading space. Of the 147 parking spaces, 42 parking spaces are
proposed for the ground floor, 57 parking spaces are proposed for the second level and 48 parking
spaces are proposed for the third level. The project proposes 3 more parking spaces for public parking
than required by the Rosemead Municipal Code and consistent with the requirements of the community
benefit program. The project also proposes 14 bicycles spaces.
The height to the building to the top of the roof is 75’. The total height of the building, including the top
of the parapet, is 80’-0”.
There is one point of vehicular access to the site. A driveway that extends along the north project
boundary would provide vehicular access from Prospect Avenue. The Prospect Avenue entry provides
an entrance to the ground level parking area and access to ramps that provide vehicular access to parking
on the second and third floor parking areas. The vehicular access driveway at Prospect Avenue is 26-
foot wide and open with no height restriction. However, there is a 12-foot height restriction for access
from the north site driveway into the ground floor parking. All delivery vehicles for the nonresidential
space on the ground level would enter the site from Prospect Avenue and park in a designated loading
area on the ground level for site deliveries. Delivery trucks would be restricted to two axle trucks. Delivery
trucks would not be allowed to park along either Prospect Avenue or Garvey Avenue. The proposed site
plan is shown in Figure 9.
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Amendment
The project also includes an amendment to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan permitting sit-down
restaurants with a minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an Administrative Use Permit for
beer/wine sales in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) and Garvey Avenue Specific Plan,
Incentivized Mixed -Use (GSP-MU) zones. This proposed Amendment would continue to require a
Conditional Use Permit for all other on-site alcohol sales for sit-down restaurants less than 6,000 square
feet.
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the development of a sit-
down restaurant in both the GSP and GSP-MU zones. The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan states that for
eating and drinking establishments with “On-Sale” ABC license, “A regional or national chain restaurant
larger than 6,000 square feet to serve alcohol without a CUP in the GSP-MU zone, provided that a valid
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Figure 6
Ground Floor Landscape Plan
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Figure 7
Second-Fourth Floors Landscape Plan
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Figure 8
Fifth-Seventh Floors Landscape Plan
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Figure 12Trip Distribution
N
Source: Stantec
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
5' WIDE PARKWAY (AMENITY ZONE)7' WIDE DETACHED SIDEWALK (CLEAR ZONE)7' WIDE DETACHED SIDEWALK (CLEAR ZONE)
5' WIDE PARKWAY (AMENITY ZONE)
LAUNDRY
LAUNDRY
LAUNDRY
LAUNDRY
ELEV LOBBY LOADINGAREAELECTRICALROOMRAMP UP TO 2ND FLR42 PARKING SPACES
RETAIL±6,346 SF OPENSPACE
PLAZAOPEN SPACELIVE WORK197'-7"210'-0"6'-2"5'-11"25'-0"40'-10"3'-0"9'-0"TYP.1'-0"3'-0"33'-1"30'-10"25'-6"
UTILITY/STORAGE
COMMERCIALTRASH
RESIDENTIALTRASH
16% RAMPTRANS-FORMEROPENTO SKYABOVE
15'-7"
COMMERCIALBICYCLEPARKING
UP
UP
UP
4'-4"
25'-0"
COMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL
COMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL2'-0"2'-0"CORRIDORA1A3
A2
24'-2"25'-0"CANOPYABOVE (TYP)2'-0"5'-0"
(E) FIREHYDRANT
ADA CURB RAMP
±47'-6"
7'-0"
52'-10"95'-7"
123'-3"30'-10"5'-0"7'-0"CANOPYABOVE(TYP)
(N) DRIVEWAY
(N) CMU WALL W/VINES PLANTED6 FEET APART
(N) CMU WALL
CCCCRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTPUBLICPARKINGRESIDENTGUESTPUBLICPARKINGPUBLICPARKINGRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTIALBIKE STORAGE
OPENSPACEA4
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
5'-0"COMMERCIALCOMMERCIALRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTSECUREDENTRANCE/EXITROLL UP GATE
SECUREDENTRANCE/EXITROLL UP GATE
RESIDENTGUEST RESIDENTGUEST RESIDENTGUEST RESIDENTGUESTCAB D E F
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
G I
82'-0"22'-0"5'-0"
1
A400
2
A400
2'-0"
2'-0"2'-0"2'-0"SECUREDENTRANCE/EXITROLL UP GATEPATIO 110 SFPATIO 110 SFPATIO 110 SFPA TIO 110 SFBIO FILTRATIONPLANTER, PER CIVIL
(N) TREE
(N) TREE
UTILITYROOM 9'-0"TYP.18'-0"
TYP.
METAL GATESCREENINGCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALMAILCCCLIVE/WORKGUESTCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL AMMENITIES
RETAIL
2 BEDROOM
3 BEDROOM
COURTYARD/OPEN AREA
LIVE-WORK UNITS
PLAN LEGEND
SECURED PARKINGAREA
4 BEDROOM
EXTERIOR LIGHT(WALL SCONCE)
2'-0" CLEAR
8'-0"
1'-0"
8'-0"9'-0"9'-0"18'-0"2'-0" CLEAR
PARKING STALLS SHALL BE STRIPED WITHTHREE-INCH DOUBLE LINES, SIX INCHESAPART. THE STALL WIDTH SHALL BEMEASURED FROM THE CENTER POINT OFEACH DOUBLE STRIPED MARKING.
WALL OROBSTRUCTION 16'-0"16'-0"18'-0"3"6"3"3"6"3"3"3"STALL WIDTHSTALL LENGHTCOMPACT PARKING STANDARD PARKING
1'-0"WALL OROBSTRUCTION 970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107LOS ANGELES, CA 90012p. 213.537.0910info@scaleslab.comwww.scaleslab.comPROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USEDATE:SHEET:DESCRIPTION:DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.7539 GARVEY AVE.ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIASITE/1ST FLOOR PLANA-101NORTH
SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"
PARKING BREAKDOWN:
PARKING STANDARD DIAGRAM:21-11-10Figure 9
Site Plan
Source: scale(s) lab architect
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 12
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) is obtained.”1 Rosemead
Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.04.050 (Definitions - General) defines a "Restaurant, Sit-down" as “an
establishment engaged in the business of selling food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages,
prepared on site for primarily on-site consumption. Food and beverages are served to the customer at a
fixed location (i.e., booth, counter, or table). Food and beverages are ordered from a menu. Customers
typically pay for food and beverages after service and/or consumption. The sale or service of sandwiches,
whether prepared in the kitchen or made elsewhere and heated on the premises, or snack foods, shall
not constitute a sit-down restaurant.”
The City recently adopted the Freeway Corridor Mixed-Use Overlay (FCMU)2 that encompasses six
geographic areas within Rosemead. The areas total approximately 60 acres (186 parcels) and were
selected based on proximity to the Interstate 10 (I-10) Freeway, location along primary City corridors,
and adjacency to public transit lines. FCMU Overlay areas are located along Del Mar Avenue, San
Gabriel Boulevard, Walnut Grove Avenue, Valley Boulevard, Temple City Boulevard, and Rosemead
Boulevard. The FCMU Overlay identifies special provisions for land use, development standards, urban
design, community benefits, and by -right uses, in addition to those in the existing underlying base zone,
to support appropriate mixed-use and residential development. The FCMU Overlay also identifies public
and private realm improvements that will further enhance the aesthetic and character of these areas.
Similar to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, the FCMU Overlay requires a CUP for the development of
an eating and drinking establishment with an “On-Sale” ABC license in both the FCMU-Corridor (FCMU-
C) and FCMU-Block (FCMU-B) overlay zones. As shown in Table 2-1 Permitted Uses of the FCMU, “a
sit-down restaurant larger than 1,000 square feet is permitted to serve beer/wine with an AUP
(Administrative Use Permit), provided that a valid license from ABC is obtained. See RMC 17.30.040 for
additional information related to alcohol beverage sales and RMC 17.04.050 for definition of a sit-down
restaurant.” To be consistent with the FCMU and assist the development community in Rosemead with
relief for businesses that are facing economic hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic, including the
Prospect Villa project applicant, the City proposes the Amendment to allow a sit-down restaurant with
beer/wine sales larger than 1,000 square feet, in the GSP and GSP-MU zones with an AUP. A sit-down
restaurant would also have to meet the requirements of RMC 17.30.040 for alcohol beverage sales and
RMC 17.04.050 for the definition of a sit-down restaurant.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The land uses surrounding the project site include Prospect
Avenue adjacent to and west of site and west of Prospect Avenue is a McDonald’s restaurant, to the
north are single-family and multi-family residential units, to the east is a restaurant and multi-family
residential dwelling units and south of the site is Garvey Avenue and south of Garvey Avenue are
commercial uses. Figure 10 shows photographs of the on-site land uses and Figure 11 shows
photographs of the surrounding land uses. Figure 12 is a photo orientation map of the on-site and
surrounding land uses.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: The discretionary approvals required from the
City of Rosemead include the following project approvals: Specific Plan Amendment (21-01) and Specific
Plan Zone Change (21-02). No other public agency approvals are required.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a
plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to
tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Tribal letters were mailed by
the City of Rosemead on September 21, 2021 to eight tribes and formally invited consultation with the
1 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Figure 3.3 Land Use Table, Eating and Drinking Establishments: With “On Sale” ABC License, page 3-
11.
2 City of Rosemead Resolution No. 2021-40, September 7, 2021.
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Figure 10
On-Site Land Use
A. Looking north at project site from Garvey Avenue B. Looking east at project site from Prospect Avenue
C. Looking at project site from intersection of Garvey and Prospect Avenues
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Figure 11
Surrounding Land Uses
D. Residential Units North of Project Site E. McDonald’s Restaurant West of Project Site
F. Commercial Uses South of Project Site G. Commercial Uses East of Project Site
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Figure 12
Photo Orientation Map
Project
Site
C
D
F
B
A
E
G
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 16
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
City in compliance with 21080.3.1. To date the City has received a request from the Gabrielino Band of
Mission Indians – Kizh Nation for consultation. The tribes that were contacted include:
1. Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation – Andrew Salas
2. Gabrieleno/Tongva Nation – Charles Alvares
3. Gabrieleno/Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council – Robert Dorame
4. Gabrielino-Tongva Nation – Sandonne Goad
5. Gabrielino-Tongva Nation – Sam Dunlap
6. Gabrielino-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians – Anthony Morales
7. Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians – Joseph Ontiveros
8. Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians – Michael Mirelez
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level
of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict
in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2) Information may also be available from the California
Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources
Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3
(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
12. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
13. 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 impact on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 17
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless
mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on an earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature: Date
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
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 question. A “No Impact”
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No
Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,
or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less-than-significant Impact”. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier
Analyses,” as described in (5) below may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 18
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental
effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
14. ISSUES:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of
the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that
will adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
II. AGRICULTURE and FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest
land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and
forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 19
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which due to their location or nature, could
individually or cumulatively result in the loss of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutants for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 20
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource as
defined in §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.)
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 21
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan,
or where such a plan has not been adopted,
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 22
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
within two miles of a public airport, will the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people working or residing in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces in a manner, which
would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site;
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on-or off-site;
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an
environmental effect?
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 23
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport, will the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned 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 people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XVI. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 24
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place,
or object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1 (k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 25
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state and local management
and reduction statues and regulations related to
solid waste?
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result or runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially
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, substantially 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?
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 26
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
15. EXPLANATION OF ISSUES:
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The project site and the surrounding
properties in the City of Rosemead are not designated as a scenic vista by the City of Rosemead General
Plan.
The most predominant scenic vista open to the Rosemead community is the San Gabriel Valley mountain
range approximately 8 miles north of the city. There are no existing residences adjacent to the project
that look across the project site to view the San Gabriel mountains. Therefore, the project would not
block or interrupted any existing views of the San Gabriel mountains by any area residents. The closest
residents that look across the site to the San Gabriel mountains to the north are the residents along both
sides of Prospect Avenue south of Garvey Avenue and more than 250 feet south of the project site.
While direct views of the San Gabriel mountains by the residents south of the site would be partially
interrupted by the proposed mixed-use building, their views would not be completely blocked. The
resident’s south of Garvey Avenue would continue to have some distant views of the San Gabriel
mountains to the north. There are no other scenic vistas or views that would be impacted by the project.
The Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report did not identify any scenic
resource impacts with the development of the Specific Plan.3 Therefore, the project would not have a
significant scenic vista impact.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. There are no Officially Designated or
Eligible State Scenic Highways4 and no scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic
buildings within a state scenic highway either adjacent to or in direct view from the site that would be
removed or altered by the project. The closest State Scenic Highway to the project is Route 2 near La
Canada Flintridge and approximately 16 miles north of the project. The project would not impact a state
scenic resource.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact.
The project is located within an urbanized area.5 The project site is vacant and there are no existing
buildings or other site improvements on the project site that would have to be demolished to allow
construction of the project. The architecture of the proposed building is Modern style. New landscaping
would be installed within the five-foot street set-backs along both the north side of Garvey Avenue and
3 Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume 1, May 2017, page 1-3.
4 State of California Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenichighways/
5 CEQA Guidelines §15387.
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 27
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
the east side of Prospect Avenue. Vines and other exterior building landscaping materials are proposed
for the exterior walls along the north side of the building.
The architectural design and character of the proposed mixed-use building includes building elevations
that are detailed and articulated with projections and recesses to avoid long and plain surfaces. Building
massing would be further minimized through the use of differentiated building materials, and colors and
the incorporation of architectural features such as extended balconies with glass panels. A rendering of
the proposed mixed-use building is shown in Figure 13. The design and Modern architecture of the
proposed mixed-use building along with landscaped private open space would improve the aesthetics of
the site for the existing residents north and east of the site as well as the commercial businesses adjacent
to the site. The project would also improve the street views of the vacant site for motorists and
pedestrians on both Prospect Avenue and Garvey Avenue by replacing the flat vacant site with a new
Modern architectural mixed-use building and landscaping. Figure 13 is a rendering of the project from
the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Prospect Avenue.
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan design and development guidelines and standards provide specific
policies for how parcels and buildings shall be developed, such as setbacks and parking requirements,
or height and density limits. They are intended to supplement the development standards in Rosemead’s
General Plan, as well as the design guidelines outlined in the Garvey Avenue Master Plan and in
Rosemead’s Mixed-Use Design Guidelines. These documents specifically addressed many design
guidelines important to this Specific Plan, including but not limited to those that relate to the public realm
and pedestrian environment, building and storefront design, parking, and utilities. The design standards
and guidelines of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan are largely consistent with those in the Garvey Avenue
Master Plan and Rosemead’s Mixed-Use Guidelines, and, likewise, largely share the same goals as
those in the Garvey Avenue Master Plan and Rosemead’s Mixed-Use Guidelines.
These goals include:
Upgrading the image and appeal of Garvey Avenue as a safe, attractive, and high-quality commercial
environment;
a. Encouraging high quality infill and mixed-use redevelopment of vacant lots and underutilized
properties to their highest and best use, whether commercial, residential, office, entertainment,
or open space;
b. Activating the street and enhancing the pedestrian environment and scale;
c. Ensuring compatibility between adjacent uses, especially single-family residential and other
mixed-use projects;
d. Inviting and supporting transit and active transportation;
e. Crafting parking requirements that balance parking needs with updated standards that give
flexibility to developers, manage parking as efficiently as possible, and minimize the negative
impacts of parking on the neighborhood; and
f) Integrating high-quality landscape and streetscape design that is consistent throughout the
corridor.6
As stated in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, design standards and guidelines should be used by
landowners, developers, tenants, and their consultants, such as architects, who propose any alteration,
addition, constructions and/or development projects within the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan area. City
staff should use the Plan to review projects for: 1) compliance with the design standards, and 2)
6 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, February 2018, page 3-16.
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA
PROJECTPROSPECT VILLA7539 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
OWNERDEL MAR PROPERTY LLC
120 E. VALLEY BLVD.SAN GABRIEL, CA 91776
Figure 13
Building Rendering
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 29
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
compliance with the intent of the design guidelines. Individuals and entities proposing projects within the
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan area should review and understand these standards and guidelines before
initiating the design and development process. To facilitate project approvals, questions regarding the
design standards and guidelines, as well as other development-related questions, should be discussed
with the Community Development Director or designee as early in the development process as possible.
Individuals and entities proposing projects should use these design standards and guidelines at each
project stage to shape concepts and designs to realize compatible architecture and urban design that
meets City of Rosemead requirements and expectations. City staff and others use these standards and
guidelines to understand proposed projects in relationship to approved objectives, goals, standards, and
guidelines.7
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Development Standards are provided in Table 3.4 of the Specific Plan.
The proposed project meets and complies with all of the applicable development standards required for
the development of a project in compliance with the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-
Use (GSP-MU) specific plan and zoning designation requested by the project applicant. Table 1 below
shows the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan development standards and project compliance with the
applicable development standards. As noted in Table 1, based on the site plan, building elevations and
landscape plan, the project meets the intent of all applicable design goals of the Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan. The project would not have any significant aesthetic impacts.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is
currently vacant and does not generate any light or glare. The proposed project would introduce new
sources of light and glare on the site compared to the existing condition. The project site is surrounded
by existing commercial and residential development. Therefore, light and glare from the existing
development adjacent to and surrounding the site and headlights of motor vehicle traffic on Garvey
Avenue and Prospect Avenue adjacent to the site currently exists in the project vicinity and light and glare
from those land uses and motor vehicles currently extend onto the project site.
Light
The project would generate new sources of light compared to the existing vacant site condition. The
sources of light generated by the project include City required streetlights, interior and exterior lighting of
the seven-story mixed-use building, landscape lighting, lighting in the parking areas within the building
and headlights of the cars that enter and leave the site at night. All private lighting associated with the
project would be required to meet and comply with all applicable lighting provisions in Rosemead
Municipal Code Chapter 17.88.
Due to the 75’ height of the building the light generated by the seven-story mixed-use building would be
visible from areas surrounding the project compared to the existing vacant site condition. The light
generated by the mixed-use building would be especially visible and noticeable to the existing residents
adjacent to and north and northwest of the site. While the existing residents south and northeast of the
site would see increased light from the site during the evening and nighttime hours compared to the
existing condition, they are a minimum of 230 feet from the site. Therefore, the project lighting would not
be as noticeable as the residents adjacent to and north and northwest of the site as the residents north
and northwest of the site.
While the light generated by the project compared to the existing condition would be visible to the
residents adjacent to and north and northwest of the site, due to existing lighting in the immediate project
area from existing commercial and residential uses, the lighting on the site is not anticipated to
7 Ibid, page 3-19.
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 30
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Table 1
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Development Standards – Project Compliance
Specific Plan Standards GSP-MU Comments (1)
DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
Minimum Lot Size
See RMC Section 17.08.050 regarding lot area and dimension requirements for direction on an undeveloped, substandard, or
nonconforming lot.
Mixed-Use 10,000 s.f.
Other 5,000 s.f. Comply
Minimum Lot Width 100’ Comply
Maximum Density Without
the Provision of
Community Benefits
25 dwelling units/gross acre See Community
Benefits Calculation
Maximum Density With the
Provision of Community
Benefits
80 dwelling units/gross acre Proposed 70DU/Acre
Allowed 74DU/Acre
Minimum Unit Size
Studio 600 s.f. Comply
One-Bedroom 600 s.f. Comply
Two-Bedroom 800 s.f. Comply
Each Additional Bedroom An additional 200 s.f./ bedroom Comply
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Without the Provision of
Community Benefits
Commercial: 0.75 maximum
Mixed-Use: 1.6 maximum N/A
FAR With the Provision of
Community Benefits Commercial: 1.0 maximum
Mixed-Use: 3.0 maximum
See Community
Benefits Calculation
Required Floor Area of the
Ground Floor Space in a
Vertical Mixed-Use
Building located along
Garvey Avenue
Lots with 50’ or less of street frontage: 800
s.f., minimum
Lots with 51’ or more of street frontage:
20% of the lot area, minimum.
A minimum of 20% of the building footprint
shall be dedicated to ground floor space.
Comply
REQUIRED MIXED-USE LAND USE SPLIT
Floor-Area Land Use Mix
65% Residential Use and 35%
Nonresidential Use (Mixed-Use
Development Only)
Request Modification
Or Amendment
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 31
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Specific Plan Standards GSP-MU Comments (2)
BUILDING HEIGHT AND FORM
Maximum Height
Maximum height is calculated to the top of roofline or roof structures including but not limited to elevator
housing, stairways, tanks, ventilating fans, roof signs, etc. Acknowledged
75’ Comply
Height Exception An additional 5’ beyond the height limit is allowed for unique architectural elements as determined by the
Community Development Director. N/A
Maximum Building Length Building façade lengths may not exceed 300’. Comply
BUILDING RELATIONSHIP TO STREET
Minimum Building
Placement on Lot Frontage
Minimum lot frontage that must be developed by a building Comply
Less than 1.00 acre site – 60%
1.00 acre site to 6.99 acre site – 60%
The 60% requirement may be satisfied
with: building placement on the property
line (nonresidential) or setback line
(residential) for 60% of the lot width,
OR
Building placement on the property line
(nonresidential) or setback line
(residential) equal to a minimum of 25%
of the lot frontage, and
Vertical feature placement on the property
line (nonresidential) or setback line
(residential) equal to a maximum of 35%
of the lot frontage. Vertical features
satisfying this requirement are: (1) highly
landscaped decorative wall, which
screens parking area from view of the
public right-of-way, or (2) a highly
landscaped public plaza/public amenity
space incorporating a decorative wall.
The vertical feature’s and/or decorative
wall’s design and placement
Comply
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 32
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Specific Plan Standards GSP-MU Response (3)
must be approved by the Community
Development Director
7.00 acre or greater site – 60%
Ground Floor Height Nonresidential: 14’ minimum
Residential: 10’ minimum Comply
Elevation Above Street Level
Ground Floor Living Space
Ground Floor
Nonresidential
0’ minimum
2’ maximum
Nonresidential Façade
Height at or near Street
Frontage
Minimum height for nonresidential building façade at or near the street frontage, measured to the top of
the façade. For single story buildings, a false front or parapet should be used to achieve this minimum
height. Where exterior frontage height varies along the building frontage, the minimum height shall be
considered to be the average height of the building frontage.
25’ minimum
GROUND FLOOR BUILDING DESIGN
Ground Floor Blank Walls
The amount of the ground level wall area directly visible from the street allowed to be left blank. The
ground level wall area is defined as that portion of the building elevation from grade to a height of 9’.
25% maximum
Comply
Ground Floor Wall Glazing
The area of ground level wall area that must be glazed with clear glass display windows and entries.
Nonresidential: 50% minimum
Residential: 40% minimum
Comply
SETBACKS FOR LIGHT, AIR, AND PRIVACY
Front Nonresidential: No minimum Ground
Floor Residential: 10’ Comply
Side – Adjacent to
Nonresidential Use or
Zoning District Other Than
R-1 and R-2
No minimum unless required by
Community Development Director, Public
Works Director, City Manager or his/her
designee, or other reviewing agency. In
such a case, the minimum setback will be
determined by the Community
Development Director, City Engineer, City
Manager, or other reviewing agency.
See Plans and
Sections
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 33
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Specific Plan Standards GSP-MU Response (4)
Side – Adjacent to Existing
Residential, School, or
Park Use
10’ minimum Comply
Side – Adjacent to R-1 or
R- 2 Zoning District
All residential, nonresidential, and mixed-use developments shall have a side variable height when
abutting R-1 or R-2 zone. This specifies a setback minimum of 10’ from the property line, with the
height increasing at a 60 degree angle from that point.
Comply
See Sections
10’minimum
Rear
20’ minimum if abutting existing residential
use, school, or park, otherwise no
minimum required
Comply
See Sections
Rear – Adjacent to R-1 or
R-2 Zoning Districts
All residential, commercial, and mixed-use developments shall have a rear variable height when abutting
R-1 or R-2 zones.
This specifies a setback minimum of 25’ from the property line, increasing at a 60 degree angle from that
point.
Comply See Sections
PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY AUTO CIRCULATION & ACCESS
Access Driveway Width One Way: 14’ minimum, 20’ maximum
Two Way: 24’ minimum, 30’ maximum Comply
Curb Cuts
1 curb cut/lot, if lot has less than 300’ of lot frontage.
1 curb cut/300’ of lot frontage, if lot frontage is greater than or equal to 300’, unless approved by
Community Development Director and City Engineer, or City Manager.
Example: 450’ lot frontage is allowed 1 curb cut; 600’ lot frontage is allowed 2 curb cuts.
Comply
2 curb cuts
Proposed
Frontage Dedicated to
Parking and/or Driveways 20% of lot frontage maximum NA
PARKING
Minimum Nonresidential Vehicle Parking
Restaurant
Restaurants with floor area less than
2,500 s.f.: 1 standard sized parking space
per 400 s.f.
See Plans
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 34
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Specific Plan Standards GSP-MU Comments (5)
Restaurants with floor area greater than or
equal to 2,500 s.f.: 1 standard sized
parking space per 200 s.f.
Outdoor seating area utilized in
conjunction with an approved eating
and/or drinking establishment shall not
count towards calculations for off-street
parking requirements.
However, if the outdoor area is utilized in
conjunction with nonresidential use, other
than eating and/or drinking establishment,
such outdoor area shall count towards
calculations for off-street parking
requirements.
Comply
See Plans
Nonresidential other than
Restaurant and Hotel 1 standard sized parking space/400 s.f. Comply
See Plans
Minimum Residential Vehicle Parking
Residential (includes guest
parking)
For residential developments, the project
shall provide no less than 1.0 standard
sized parking space/dwelling unit.
Comply
See Plans
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 35
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Specific Plan Standards GSP-MU Comments (6)
. In addition to the residential spaces
described above, 0.5 standard sized
parking space/dwelling unit is required
guest parking.
Parking provided for residential uses or
the residential component of a mixed-use
structure must be covered and secure.
Guest parking may be uncovered.
Comply
See Plans
Minimum Bicycle Parking
Bicycle Parking
See RMC Section 17.28.030(D)(2)(c).
Bicycle parking spaces provided for
residential use must be covered, secured,
and located separately from bicycle
parking spaces provided for
nonresidential uses.
Comply
See Plans
LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE
Landscaping 6% minimum Comply
See Plans
Usable Public Open Space
– Nonresidential Uses or
Nonresidential Component
of Mixed-Use
5% of total parcel area, minimum
Comply
See Plans
Required Landscaping of
Public Open Space for
Nonresidential Uses or
Nonresidential Component
of Mixed-Use
50% of usable public open space,
minimum
Comply
See Plans
Usable Private Common
Open Space – Residential
Uses and Residential
Component of Mixed-Use
150 s.f./dwelling unit minimum Comply
See Plans
Private Usable Open
Space
Private open space must be open to air, not fully enclosed with walls. Private open space cannot be covered by a
roof by more than 50% of the area; however, balconies can have up to 100% ceiling coverage. Private open
space includes balconies, patios, or yards.
75 s.f./unit minimum OR
1. 60 s.f. /dwelling unit minimum;
Comply
See Plans
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 36
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Specific Plan Standards GSP-MU Comments (7)
2. Private usable open space square
footage per unit and usable private
common open space square footage per
unit shall total at least 350
s.f./ unit; and
3. Approval of the Community
Development Director.
Sidewalks, walkways, equipment areas
associated with usable private open space
are not eligible for inclusion in the
calculation.
Comply
See Plans
Private Open Space
Ground Floor Dimension
8’ in any direction minimum
Comply
See Plans
Private Open Space
Balcony Dimension
5’ in any direction minimum
Comply
See Plans
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 37
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
significantly impact these residents because light currently exists in the area. The light in the immediate
project vicinity associated with existing residential and commercial development would minimize the
lighting impact of the project to existing residents.
There would be an incremental increase in the amount of light on area roadways from the headlights of
the motor vehicles generated by the project. Since all of the roadways that would serve project traffic,
such as Garvey Avenue and Prospect Avenue, have nighttime lighting from existing motor vehicle traffic
the nighttime lighting by project traffic would not be new or unique to the roadways. While the project
would incrementally increase the amount of nighttime motor vehicle lighting on area roadways, the
increase in motor vehicle lighting would not significantly impact the existing land uses adjacent to the
roadways.
Lights from the existing commercial uses adjacent to and within close proximity to the project, including
the McDonald’s restaurant west of the site and the commercial uses south and east of the site generate
nighttime lighting that extends onto the project site. Therefore, the lighting that would be generated by
the project would not be new or unique to the project vicinity.
The project proposes to construct a six-foot decorative masonry wall along the north project boundary,
which would prevent automobile lights entering and leaving the site from shining directly onto the
residential units adjacent to and north of the site. Thus, the headlights of the cars leaving the ground
level parking area of the building would not shine directly onto the residential units north of the site. Figure
14 shows landscaped walls that are proposed on the north side of the second and third floors of the
mixed-use building. These landscaped walls would prevent headlights of cars on those floors from
shining directly onto the residences north of the site. The headlights of cars exiting the site at the project
driveway at Prospect Avenue would shine directly onto the McDonalds restaurant parking lot that is
adjacent to and west of Prospect Avenue. The headlights of cars exiting the project site onto Prospect
Avenue would shine onto a commercial use and not existing residential development.
City required parking lot lights, exterior safety and security lighting along with interior lighting of the
residential units would be visible to adjacent residents north and northwest of the site. The wall along
the north side of the mixed-use building along with the proposed six-foot decorative masonry wall along
the north project boundary would eliminate headlights from the cars in the ground level parking lot from
shinning onto the yards and residences of the residents adjacent to and north of the project.
The nighttime safety, security and aesthetic lighting associated with the project would be visible to the
surrounding land uses closest to the project, including the light sensitive residents adjacent to and north
of the site. While the interior and exterior lights of the proposed seven-story mixed-use building would
be greater than the existing vacant site condition, there is lighting in the project vicinity that is generated
by existing commercial development.
Figures 15 and 16 show the proposed exterior light fixtures for the building. As shown, the light fixtures
are located approximately 10 feet from the ground level along the north, west and south sides of the
building. No light fixtures are proposed for the east side of the building that is adjacent to existing
commercial uses. Therefore, the project would not generate new sources of lighting that do not already
exist within the project area. Although the lighting generated by the project would be greater than the
vacant site condition, the increased project lighting is not anticipated to be significantly greater than the
intensity of the light of existing commercial development adjacent to and within the immediate vicinity of
the project.
To ensure that the proposed exterior building lighting plan does not significantly impact existing adjacent
and surrounding land uses, the following measure is recommended to reduce off-site lighting impacts to
less than significant.
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107LOS ANGELES, CA 90012p. 213.537.0910info@scaleslab.comwww.scaleslab.comPROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USEDATE:SHEET:DESCRIPTION:DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.7539 GARVEY AVE.ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIARENDERINGA-312VIEW ALONG PROSPECT AVE.21-09-01Figure 14
North Building Elevation Rendering
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
1ST LEVEL0' - 0"
2ND LEVEL14' - 0"
3RD LEVEL25' - 0"
4TH LEVEL35' - 0"
5TH LEVEL45' - 0"
6TH LEVEL55' - 0"
7TH LEVEL65' - 0"
ROOF LEVEL75' - 0"14'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"75'-0"TOP OFPARAPET
5'-0"5'-0"1ST LEVEL0' - 0"
2ND LEVEL14' - 0"
3RD LEVEL25' - 0"
4TH LEVEL35' - 0"
5TH LEVEL45' - 0"
6TH LEVEL55' - 0"
7TH LEVEL65' - 0"
ROOF LEVEL75' - 0"14'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"75'-0"TOP OFPARAPET
5'-0"5'-0"SOUTH ELEVATION2
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION1
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
MATERIAL LEGEND
L EXTERIOR LIGHT (WALL SCONCE)
L L L
Figure 15
South and East Exterior Light Fixtures
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Keystone Development, Construction Services Figure 10Typical Building Elevations
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
1ST LEVEL0' - 0"
2ND LEVEL14' - 0"
3RD LEVEL25' - 0"
4TH LEVEL35' - 0"
5TH LEVEL45' - 0"
6TH LEVEL55' - 0"
7TH LEVEL65' - 0"
ROOF LEVEL75' - 0"14'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"75'-0"TOP OFPARAPET
5'-0"5'-0"1ST LEVEL0' - 0"
2ND LEVEL14' - 0"
3RD LEVEL25' - 0"
4TH LEVEL35' - 0"
5TH LEVEL45' - 0"
6TH LEVEL55' - 0"
7TH LEVEL65' - 0"
ROOF LEVEL75' - 0"14'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"75'-0"TOP OFPARAPET
5'-0"5'-0"WEST ELEVATION1
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION2
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
MATERIAL LEGEND
L EXTERIOR LIGHT (WALL SCONCE)
LL L
LL
Figure 16
North and West Exterior Light Fixtures
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 41
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Mitigation Measure No. 1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a
lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates the
following light reducing measures as applicable:
• Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/or
different lighting distribution.
• Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed
lighting fixtures.
• Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures.
• Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies
• A combination of the above.
Glare
Glare from the windows and metal surfaces of the proposed mixed-use building could impact adjacent
land uses that are glare-sensitive, especially the existing residences north of the project site. A six-foot
decorative masonry wall is proposed along the entire length of the north project boundary and would
block and eliminate ground level glare impacts to the residents north of the project. Glare from the live-
work and apartment windows and metal building materials above the ground floor could extend to the
resident’s north of the project. However, none of the proposed project building designs and materials
would prevent some glare by the project from extending to the existing residences north of the site.
For the most part, the windows on the second through seventh floors could generate glare to existing
land uses adjacent to and in close proximity to the site at specific times of the year when the sun angle
would generate glare. The glass walls on the balconies on all sides of the building on the fourth through
seventh floors could also generate glare to existing land uses in close proximity of the project. While
some of the windows of the live-work units and apartments are recessed into the building, glare could
still be generated during specific periods of the day. Because the windows are recessed and somewhat
set-back into the building to minimize the angle of the sun shining on the windows, glare from the windows
to the residences north of the site and other surrounding areas would be minimal. The project would not
generate glare to the residences north of the site during by the residential units on the north side of the
building during the winter months when the sun is in the southern horizon.
The glass of the store-fronts on the ground level along Prospect Avenue and Garvey Avenue could
generate glare to pedestrians and motorists on the adjacent streets and commercial uses. However,
due to the design of the building, including recessed store-fronts and awnings along the top of the
storefronts, the glare from the stores on the ground level is not anticipated to significantly impact
pedestrians, motorists or existing commercial uses adjacent to the site.
While the project would increase the amount of light and glare that is generated from the site currently,
the light and glare impacts to the existing residents north of the site, the pedestrians, motorists and
commercial uses adjacent to and west, south and east of the site would be less than significant.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is vacant. There
are no agricultural uses either on or adjacent to the site. The site is designated “Area Not Mapped” by
the State of California Department of Conservation as of 20168, which means the site has not been
mapped for agricultural purposes by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and
8 https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 42
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Monitoring Program (FMMP). The project would not convert prime, unique, or farmland of statewide
importance to non-agricultural use and impact farmland.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The
project site is not in a Williamson Act contact. The existing Garvey Avenue Specific Plan zoning for the
site does not allow agricultural use. The zoning for the properties adjacent to the site does not allow
agricultural use on those properties. The project would not conflict with any existing agricultural use or
existing Williamson Act contracts since there are no agricultural uses on or adjacent to the site.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No
Impact. There are no timber or forests in the City of Rosemead. The existing Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan zoning does not allow timber or forest production on the site and the project does not propose
timberland production for the property. The project would not impact any forest or timber production
since there is no forest or timber production on the site and the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan does not
allow forest or timber production within the boundary of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. See
Response to Section “II.c” above.
d) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could
individually or cumulatively result in the loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. As
discussed in Section “II.a” above, the project would not result in the loss of any farmland, either
individually or cumulatively and would not have any impact to farmland.
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant
Impact. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is the primary federal agency for
regulating air quality. The EPA implements the provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA). This Act
establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that are applicable nationwide. The EPA
designates areas with pollutant concentrations that do not meet the NAAQS as non-attainment areas for
each criteria pollutant. States are required by the FCAA to prepare State Implementation Plans (SIP) for
designated non-attainment areas. The SIP is required to demonstrate how the areas would attain the
NAAQS by the prescribed deadlines and what measures would be required to attain the standards. The
EPA also oversees implementation of the prescribed measures. Areas that achieve the NAAQS after a
non-attainment designation are redesignated as maintenance areas and must have approved
Maintenance Plans to ensure continued attainment of the NAAQS.
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) required all air pollution control districts in the state to prepare plans
to reduce pollutant concentrations exceeding the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and
ultimately achieve the CAAQS. The districts are required to review and revise these plans every three
years. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), in which the project is located,
satisfies this requirement through the publication of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The
AQMP is developed by SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in
coordination with local governments and the private sector. The AQMP is incorporated into the SIP by
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to satisfy FCAA requirements discussed above.
The CCAA requires plans to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS for which an area is designated as
nonattainment. Further, the CCAA requires SCAQMD to revise its plan to reduce pollutant concentrations
exceeding the CAAQS every three years. In the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), SCAQMD and SCAG,
in coordination with local governments and the private sector, develop the AQMP for the air basin to
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 43
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
satisfy these requirements. The AQMP is the most important air management document for the basin
because it provides the blueprint for meeting state and federal ambient air quality standards.
On December 7, 2012, the 2012 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board. The primary
task of the 2012 AQMP is to bring the basin into attainment with federal health-based standards for
unhealthful fine particulate matter (PM2.5) by 2014. The document states that to have any reasonable
expectation of meeting the 2023 ozone deadline, the scope and pace of continued air quality
improvement must greatly intensify.
AQMPs are required to be updated every three years. The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD
Board on March 3, 2017, and has been submitted to the California Air Resources Board for forwarding
to the EPA. The 2016 AQMP acknowledges that motor vehicle emissions have been effectively controlled
and that reductions in NOx, the continuing ozone problem pollutant, may need to come from major
stationary sources (power plants, refineries, landfill flares, etc.). The current attainment deadlines for all
federal non-attainment pollutants are now as follows:
• 8-hour ozone (70 ppb) 2032
• Annual PM-2.5 (12 g/m3) 2025
• 8-hour ozone (75 ppb) 2024 (old standard)
• 1-hour ozone (120 ppb) 2023 (rescinded standard)
• 24-hour PM-2.5 (35 g/m3) 2019
The project does not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or
regulations governing mixed-use development projects. The conformity of a project with adopted plans,
forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick
by which the significance of a project impact of planned growth is determined. The SCAQMD, however,
while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth-accommodating document, does not favor designating
regional impacts as less than significant just because a proposed development is consistent with regional
growth projections. The potential air quality impact significance of the proposed project is therefore
analyzed on a project-specific basis. As shown in the analysis below, the specific project construction
and operational emissions are less than significant and as a result, project emissions would not obstruct
implementation of the SCAB 2016 Air Quality Management Plan.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less
Than Significant Impact. Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth
within the project area. However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from
mobile sources, which travel well out of the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the
cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered,
would cover an even larger area.
The project is located within the SCAB and non-attainment for ozone and PM10 particulate matter.
Construction and operation of cumulative projects would further degrade the local air quality, as well as
the air quality of the South Coast Air Basin. The greatest cumulative impact on the regional air quality is
the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and
industrial development and the use of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the construction of
these projects. Air quality would be temporarily degraded during construction activities that occur
separately or simultaneously. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do
not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do
not add to the overall cumulative impact.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 44
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
As stated in Section “III.c” below, based on the air quality report that was prepared for the project, the
project would not generate any short- or long-term air emissions that exceed SCAQMD emission
thresholds. Therefore, the project would not have any significant cumulative criteria pollutant impacts.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated. An air quality and greenhouse gas report9 was prepared for the project
and a copy is included in Appendix A of this MND.
A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to
exposure to an air contaminant. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residents
adjacent to and north of the site. The following are land uses (sensitive sites) where sensitive receptors
are typically located:
• Schools, playgrounds and childcare centers
• Long-term health care facilities
• Rehabilitation centers
• Convalescent centers
• Hospitals
• Retirement homes
• Residences10
Criteria Pollutants, Health Effects, and Standards
Under the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), the U.S. EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for six major pollutants; ozone (O3), respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine
particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead.
These six air pollutants are referred to as the criteria pollutants. The NAAQS are two tiered: primary, to
protect public health, and secondary, to prevent degradation to the environment (i.e., impairment of
visibility, damage to vegetation and property).
Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the California Air Resources Board has established California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) to protect the health and welfare of Californians. State
standards have been established for the six criteria pollutants as well as four additional pollutants;
visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Table 2 presents the state and
national ambient air quality standards. Table 3 shows the health effects of the various pollutants.
Monitored Air Quality
Air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air
quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Long term air quality
monitoring is carried out by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at 38 air-
monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station in most areas. Existing and probable
future levels of air quality in Pomona can be best inferred from the ambient air quality measurements
conducted by SCAQMD at its Pomona, Upland and Ontario (near Route 60) air monitoring stations.
These stations measure both regional pollution levels such as ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide
and PM-2.5 dust (particulates). Table 4 summarizes the last four years of monitoring data from a
composite of these data resources.
9 Air Quality and GHG Analysis, Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project, City of Rosemead, Ca, Giroux & Associates, October 12, 2021.
10 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local
Planning, Chapter 2, page 2-1.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 45
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Table 2
Ambient Air Quality Standards
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 46
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 47
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Table 3
Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Carbon Monoxide
(CO) • Incomplete combustion of fuels and other
carbon-containing substances, such as motor
exhaust.
• Natural events, such as decomposition of
organic matter.
• Reduced tolerance for exercise.
• Impairment of mental function.
• Impairment of fetal development.
• Death at high levels of exposure.
• Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina).
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2) • Motor vehicle exhaust.
• High temperature stationary combustion.
• Atmospheric reactions.
• Aggravation of respiratory illness.
• Reduced visibility.
• Reduced plant growth.
• Formation of acid rain.
Ozone
(O3) • Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with
nitrogen oxides in sunlight.
• Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
diseases.
• Irritation of eyes.
• Impairment of cardiopulmonary function.
• Plant leaf injury.
Lead (Pb) • Contaminated soil. • Impairment of blood function and nerve
construction.
• Behavioral and hearing problems in children.
Respirable Particulate
Matter
(PM-10)
• Stationary combustion of solid fuels.
• Construction activities.
• Industrial processes.
• Atmospheric chemical reactions.
• Reduced lung function.
• Aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollutants.
• Aggravation of respiratory and cardio respiratory
diseases.
• Increased cough and chest discomfort.
• Soiling.
• Reduced visibility.
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM-2.5) • Fuel combustion in motor vehicles,
equipment, and industrial sources.
• Residential and agricultural burning.
• Industrial processes.
• Also, formed from photochemical reactions of
other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides,
and organics.
• Increases respiratory disease.
• Lung damage.
• Cancer and premature death.
• Reduces visibility and results in surface soiling.
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) • Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels.
• Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores.
• Industrial processes.
• Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma,
emphysema).
• Reduced lung function.
• Irritation of eyes.
• Reduced visibility.
• Plant injury.
• Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather,
finishes, coatings, etc.
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 48
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Table 4
Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2017-2020)
(Number of Days Standards Were Exceeded, and Maximum Levels During Such Violations)
Pollutant/Standard 2017 2018 2019 2020
1-Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 7 3 5 20
8-Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) 9 5 7 23
8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F) 4 2 3 15
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.17
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.11
Carbon Monoxide
1-Hour > 20. ppm (S) 0 0 0 0
1-Hour > 9. ppm (S, F) 0 0 0 0
Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.2 1.8 1.9 1.7
Nitrogen Dioxide
1-Hour > 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.07
Respirable Particulates (PM-10)
24-Hour > 50 g/m3 (S) 6/55 10/60 4/61 8/43
24-Hour > 150 g/m3 (F) 0/55 060 0/61 0/43
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 83. 78. 82. 95.
Fine Particulates (PM-2.5)
24-Hour > 35 g/m3 (F) 1/119 0/133 0/119 0/116
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 49.5 35.4 29.6 35.4
S=State Standard, F=Federal Standard
Source: South Coast AQMD – Pico Rivera Air Monitoring Station for Ozone, CO2, NOx and PM-2.5, Azusa Air Monitoring Station
for PM-10. data: www.arb.ca.gov/adam/
The following conclusions can be drawn from the data in Table 4:
• Photochemical smog (ozone) levels occasionally exceed air quality standards. The 8-hour state
ozone standard has been exceeded on nine percent of all days. The 1-hour state standard as
well as the 8-hour federal standard have been exceeded approximately five percent of all days in
the past four years. While ozone levels are still high, they are lower than 10 to 20 years ago.
Attainment of all clean air standards in the project vicinity is not likely to occur soon, but the
severity and frequency of violations is expected to continue to slowly decline during the current
decade.
• Measurements of carbon monoxide have shown low baseline levels in comparison to the most
stringent one- and eight-hour standards.
• Respirable dust (PM-10) levels exceed the state standard on approximately four percent of
measurement days, but the less stringent federal PM-10 standard has not been violated once for
the same time period. Year to year fluctuations of overall maximum 24-hour PM-10 levels seem
to follow no discernable trend, though 2016 had the lowest maximum 24-hour concentration in
recent history.
• A substantial fraction of PM-10 is comprised of ultra-small diameter particulates capable of being
inhaled into deep lung tissue (PM-2.5). Both the frequency of violations of particulate standards,
as well as high percentage of PM-2.5, are occasional air quality concerns in the project area.
However, approximately two percent of all days exceeded the current national 24-hour standard
of 35 ug/m3 from 2015-2018.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 49
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Air Emission Thresholds
In the "1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook”, SCAQMD establishes significance thresholds to assess the
impact of project related air pollutant emissions. These emissions and their thresholds are shown in
Table 5. As shown, there are separate thresholds for short-term construction and long-term operational
emissions. A project with daily emission rates below these thresholds is considered to have a less than
significant effect on air quality. The thresholds shown below are used to evaluate the potential project
air emission impacts of the project.
Table 5
SCAQMD Daily Emissions Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant Construction Operations
ROG 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
PM-10 150 150
PM-2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
Lead 3 3
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev.
Construction Emission Impacts
Dust is typically the primary concern during construction of new buildings. Because such emissions are
not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source they are called "fugitive emissions.”
Emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed,
number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). Because of the inherent uncertainty in the
predictive factors for estimating fugitive dust generation, regulatory agencies typically use one universal
"default" factor based on the area disturbed assuming that all other input parameters into emission rate
prediction fall into midrange average values.
CalEEMod was developed by the SCAQMD to provide a model to calculate both construction and
operational emissions from a variety of land use projects. It calculates both the daily maximum and
annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.
Estimated construction emissions were modeled using CalEEMod2020.4.0 to identify maximum daily
emissions for each pollutant during project construction using default construction equipment and a
construction schedule for a project of the size proposed and shown in Table 6. Utilizing the equipment
fleet in Table 6, the worst-case daily construction emissions were calculated and are shown in Table 7.
Table 6
Construction Activity Equipment Fleet – Proposed Project
Phase Name and Duration Equipment
Grading including 1,220 cubic yards of import
(5 days)
1 Grader
1 Dozer
1 Loader/Backhoe
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 50
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Construction (100 days)
1 Crane
2 Loader/Backhoes
2 Forklifts
Paving (5 days)
1 Paver
4 Mixers
1 Loader/Backhoe
1 Roller
Table 7
Construction Activity Emissions - Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
Maximal Construction
Emissions ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
2022
Unmitigated 55.4 16.9 11.5 0.0 6.1 3.2
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
As shown in Table 7, the peak daily construction activity emissions are estimated to be below SCAQMD
CEQA thresholds without the need for mitigation. The only model-based mitigation measure that was
applied to the project was watering exposed dirt surfaces at least three times per day during grading to
minimize the generation of fugitive dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403.
SCAQMD’s Rule 403
The project would be required to comply with SCAQMD rules to reduce fugitive dust emissions during
project construction and the life of the project. Project compliance with Rule 403 is achieved through the
application of standard best management practices during construction and operation activities, which
include the application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, manage haul road dust by the
use of water, cover haul vehicles, restrict vehicle speeds on on-site unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweep
loose dirt from paved site access roadways, stop construction activity when wind speeds exceed 25 mph
and establish a permanent ground cover on finished areas.
While construction activities are not anticipated to cause dust emissions to exceed SCAQMD CEQA
thresholds, especially with compliance with Rule 403, the following mitigation measure is recommended
for enhanced dust control because the air basin is non-attainment.
Mitigation Measure No. 2 Prior to the start and throughout project construction, the contractor shall
implement and maintain the following fugitive dust control measures:
• Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive areas.
• Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the
construction site (typically 2-3 times/day).
• Cover all stockpiles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed.
• Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen
materials.
• Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone.
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material and require all
trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the
construction site.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 51
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Similarly, ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) are calculated to be below SCAQMD thresholds.
However, because of the regional non-attainment for photochemical smog, the use of reasonably
available control measures to control diesel exhaust emissions is recommended. The following mitigation
measure is recommended to control combustion emissions:
Mitigation Measure No. 3 Throughout project construction the contractor shall:
• Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.
• Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better heavy
equipment.
• Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road
equipment.
Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions from the project would be due to diesel
particulate emissions due to the operation of heavy equipment operations during construction of the
project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are described
in terms of “individual cancer risk”. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to
concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 30-year lifetime would contract cancer, based on the use
of standard risk-assessment methodology. Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction
equipment and the short-term construction schedule, the project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 30
years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk.
Furthermore, construction-based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions)
do not exceed local or regional thresholds. Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant
impacts would occur during project construction.
Localized Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition
to the more regional emissions-based thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called
Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to Governing Board’s
Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1-4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted
in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD’s Mobile Source Committee in February 2005.
LST screening tables are available for 25, 50, 100, 200- and 500-meter source-receptor distances. For
the proposed project, there are residential uses adjacent to and north of the project site, approximately
130 feet northwest of the project, west of Prospect Avenue and residents approximately 230 feet south
of the project, south of Garvey Avenue. The most conservative 25-meter distance was modeled for the
project associated with the residents adjacent to and north of the project.
For the project, the primary source of potential LST impact would be during construction. LSTs are
applicable for a sensitive receptor where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours such
as a residence, hospital or convalescent facility. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria
pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5)
and represent the maximum emissions by a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an
exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The following
LST thresholds and estimated emissions (pounds per day) are shown in Table 8 based on a disturbance
of 1.0 acre per day.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 52
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Table 8
LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day)
LST 1.0 acres/25 meters
South San Gabriel Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
LST Threshold 673 83 5 4
Max. On-Site Emissions 7 12 5 3
As shown in Table 8, the project construction emissions are less than the LST emission thresholds. As
a result, project construction emissions would be less than significant.
Operational Emission Impacts
The calculated operational emissions generated by the project based on CalEEMod2020.4.0 are shown
in Table 9. As shown, the operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD operational emission
thresholds of significance. The construction and long-term operational emissions by the project would be
less than significant.
Table 9
Daily Operational Emissions (2023)
Operational Emissions (lbs/day)
Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
Area* 2.1 1.2 6.7 0.0 0.1 0.1
Energy 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mobile 2.0 2.2 21.3 0.0 5.0 1.3
Total 4.2 3.7 28.1 0.1 5.1 1.4
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
*no wood burning fireplaces-only natural gas
Source: CalEEMod Output in Appendix
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest residents to the project are adjacent to
and north of the site. In addition, there are existing residences approximately 130 feet northwest of the
project, west of Prospect Avenue and 230 feet south of the site, south of Garvey Avenue. As shown in
Table 7 above, the project would not exceed the threshold of any measured pollutant during project
construction. Similarly, as shown in Table 8, the project would not exceed any measured pollutant during
the operational life of the project. Depending on wind patterns, some diesel odors associated with the
operation of construction equipment could extend to the residents north of the site during project
construction. However, this condition would be temporary and short-term when larger diesel-powered
construction equipment would be operating on the site, which would be during project grading. Once
project grading is completed the use of diesel-powered equipment on the site would be minimal. Although
there would be a potential for odors due to the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment to
extend to the residents adjacent to and north of the site and possibly the residents that are approximately
130 feet northwest of the site, the project is not anticipated to generate any emissions or odors during
either construction or the operational life of the project and significantly impact the residents adjacent to
and north of the site. The project would not generate any objectionable odors and significantly impact
any area sensitive receptors.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 53
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? No Impact. The project site is vacant. The on-site vegetation includes introduced urban
landscaping including five palm trees along the project perimeter, non-native grasses throughout the site
and a few shrubs. The existing on-site non-native landscaping is minimal and does not support any
wildlife species, including special candidate, sensitive or special status animal species and none of the
existing introduced non-native urban landscaping is a candidate for a sensitive or special status species.
The project would not impact wildlife or wildlife habitat.
b) Have substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The site was disturbed in the past with the
development of a mobile home park and residential use that have been demolished. The project site has
been vacant since 2012. There is no riparian habitat or other natural communities on the site. The
existing land uses adjacent to the site include residential and commercial development and as a result
there is no riparian habitat or other natural habitat communities adjacent to the project site. The project
would not impact any riparian or other natural communities either on or adjacent to the site.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means? No Impact. Please see Section “IV.b” above.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project is located in an urbanized area surrounded by
residential and commercial development. There is no habitat on the site that serves or could serve as a
migratory wildlife corridor or nursery site. The project would not impact or impede any wildlife corridors
or wildlife nursery sites.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree
preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. There is a eucalyptus street tree along the Garvey
Avenue street frontage adjacent to the site. There are no street trees along the project frontage on
Prospect Avenue. There are no oak trees on or adjacent to the project site that would be removed by
the project. Therefore, no oak trees would require protection or replacement in compliance with
Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 17.104 Oak Tree Preservation. The project would not have any oak
tree or any other tree preservation impacts. The project would not impact any local policies that protect
biological resources, including trees.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No
Impact. The City of Rosemead is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The
project would not conflict with and impact any habitat or natural community conservation plan.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5? No Impact. The site was previously developed with a mobile home park and residential use
that have been demolished. The project site has been vacant since 2012. There are no historical
resources on the site that would be impacted by the project.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource as
defined in §15064.5? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The site was disturbed
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 54
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
in the past with the construction of a mobile home park and residential use that have been demolished.
The project site has been vacant since 2012.
The project site is located in an urbanized area that has been disturbed associated with development
activities on both the project site and the adjacent properties. Because the project site has been disturbed
in the past with grading and construction of a mobile home park and residence that have been
demolished, any cultural resources that may have existed near the surface have been previously
unearthed or disturbed during the construction and demolition of the former uses. There are no records
of any recorded archaeological resources either on or adjacent to the project site. Despite previous
disturbances of the project site in the past that may have displaced archaeological resources on the
surface, it is possible that intact archaeological resources could exist below the surface area of the site
that was previously undisturbed during previous grading and building construction.
As a result, Mitigation Measures No. 4 through 7 are recommended to reduce potentially significant
archaeological and Tribal resource impacts to previously undiscovered resources that may be
encountered during project grading and construction to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 4 The project developer shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist
who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and
Standards, to conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training for
construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities.
The training session shall be carried out by a cultural resource professional
with expertise in archaeology, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. The training session
shall include a handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological
resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the
procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of archaeological
monitors, and the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist
would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary.
Mitigation Measure No. 5 In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-
disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted
away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer
area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find where
construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until a qualified
archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has
evaluated the area of the find. Work shall be allowed to continue outside
of the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project
construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional
archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be
determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be
contacted and consulted, and Native American construction monitoring
shall be initiated. The project developer and the City shall coordinate with
the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the
resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data
recovery excavations to address treatment of the resource along with
subsequent laboratory processing and analysis.
Mitigation Measure No. 6 The project developer shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist,
who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications
and Standards to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 55
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
at depths below 2’ feet to determine if construction excavations have
exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological resources.
After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks shall be
conducted at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist. If the qualified
archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed or
have a high probability to expose archaeological artifacts construction
monitoring for Archaeological Resources shall be required. The project
developer shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who will work
under the guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist, who
meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and Standards. The archaeological monitor
shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading,
trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill younger Pleistocene alluvial
sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require
multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be
based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known
archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus
artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance
and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring
can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the
project archaeologist.
Mitigation Measure No. 7 The archaeological monitor, under the direction of a qualified professional
archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards, shall prepare a final report at the conclusion
of archaeological monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the project
developer, the South Central Costal Information Center, the City, and
representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the
satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures.
The report shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any,
evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register and
CEQA, and treatment of the resources.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact.
The project site has not been used as a cemetery in the past. In addition, the site is not known to have
been used for any activities that have resulted in human remains being present on the property. In the
unlikely event that human remains are found during construction, those remains would require proper
treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5-7055 describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during
excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section
5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the
County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, and consultation with the
individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the “most likely descendant.” If
human remains are found during excavation, the excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and in
any area that is reasonably suspected to contain remains adjacent to the find, until the County Coroner
has been called, the remains have been investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been
made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with State regulations,
which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, impacts in
this regard would be considered less than significant.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 56
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Compliance with Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5-7055 and Public Resources Code Section
5097.98, related to protection of human remains, would reduce potential impacts associated with future
development project proposals to a less than significant level.
VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than
Significant Impact. Information found in this section, as well as other aspects of the project’s energy
implications, are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this MND, including Section VIII (Greenhouse
Gas Emissions) and Section XVII (Transportation) of this MND.
Construction-Related Energy Consumption
Construction equipment would be operated on the site for grading, construction of utilities, paving, and
construction of the proposed seven-story mixed-use building. The types of construction equipment that
would be operated on the site include graders, loaders/backhoes, dozers, air compressors, cranes,
forklifts, generators, welders, mixers, rollers, trenchers and pavers. The majority of the equipment would
likely be diesel-fueled; however, smaller equipment, such as air compressors and forklifts may be electric,
gas, or natural gas-fueled. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed the construction
equipment would be diesel-fueled, due to the speculative nature of specifying the amounts and types of
non-diesel equipment that might be used, and the difficulties in calculating the energy, which would be
consumed by this non-diesel equipment.
The number of construction workers required to construct the project would vary based on the phase of
construction and the activity taking place. The transportation fuel required by construction workers to
travel to and from the site would depend on the total number of worker trips estimated for the duration of
construction activity. A 2007 study by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) estimates
the statewide average fuel economy for all vehicle types (automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles) in the
year 2020 is 18.78 miles per gallon.11 Assuming construction worker vehicles have an average fuel
economy consistent with the Caltrans study and each construction worker commutes an average of 20
miles a day to and from the site, the maximum 25 workers on-site during each phase of project
construction is estimated to consume approximately 27 gallons of gasoline a day. Assuming all 25
construction workers are employed at the site for a year (52 weeks), the fuel used by construction workers
commuting to the site is approximately 173 barrels (6,922 gallons) of gasoline and represents less than
0.0005 percent of the statewide transportation gasoline consumption in 2017, which is the latest year that
data is available.12
Construction equipment fuels (e.g., diesel, gasoline, natural gas) would be provided by local or regional
suppliers and vendors. Electricity would be supplied by the local utility provider (e.g., Southern California
Edison) via existing connections. A temporary water supply, primarily for fugitive dust suppression and
street sweeping, would also be supplied by the local provider (e.g., San Gabriel Valley Water Company).
Electricity used during construction to provide temporary power for lighting and electronic equipment
(e.g., computers, etc.) inside temporary construction trailers and for outdoor lighting when necessary for
general construction activity would generally not result in a substantial increase in on-site electricity use.
Electricity use during construction would be variable depending on lighting needs and the use of electric-
powered equipment and would be temporary for the duration of construction activities. Thus, electricity
use during construction would generally be considered negligible.
11 2007 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast, California Department of Transportation, Table 1, (2008).
12California 2017 Transportation gasoline consumption – 366,820 barrels; https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/pdf/fuel_mg.pdf
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 57
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Energy Conservation: Regulatory Compliance
The project would utilize construction contractors who demonstrate compliance with applicable CARB
regulations governing the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on-
and off-road equipment. CARB has adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel
motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other Toxic Air
Contaminants (TACs). Compliance with the above anti-idling and emissions regulations would result in
a more efficient use of construction-related energy and minimize or eliminate wasteful and unnecessary
consumption of energy.
With respect to solid waste, CALGreen requires 65% of most construction and demolition waste be
diverted from a landfill. The project would generate various types of debris during construction.
Republic Services is the contract solid waste hauler for the City of Rosemead and would serve the project.
The solid waste from the project will be hauled to the Puente Hills Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in
the City of Whittier and operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. The MRF separates
recyclable material from municipal solid waste and all residual waste is hauled to permitted landfills and
all recovered recyclable materials are recycled in compliance with state law.
Anticipated Energy Consumption
The daily operation of the project would generate a demand for electricity, natural gas, and water supply,
as well as generating wastewater requiring conveyance, treatment and disposal off-site, and solid waste
requiring off-site disposal. Southern California Edison is the electrical purveyor in the City of Rosemead
and would provide electricity to the project. The Southern California Gas Company is the natural gas
purveyor in the City and would provide natural gas to the project.
Energy Conservation: Regulatory Compliance
The California Energy Commission (CEC) first adopted the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential
and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR, Title 24, Part 6) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to
reduce energy consumption in the state. Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to
as CALGreen. The purpose of CALGreen 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 quality.”13 As of January 1, 2011, CALGreen
is mandatory for the construction of all new buildings in the state. CALGreen establishes mandatory
measures for new residential and non-residential buildings. Such mandatory measures include energy
efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, planning and design and overall environmental
quality.14 CALGreen was most recently updated in 2016 to include new mandatory measures for
residential as well as nonresidential uses; the new measures took effect on January 1, 2017.15 The
project would be required by the City to comply with the applicable provisions of Title 24 and CALGreen.
With respect to solid waste, the project is required to comply with applicable regulations, including those
pertaining to waste reduction and recycling as required by the State of California. The waste hauler
serving the project would divert project-generated municipal waste in accordance with applicable city
ordinances.
13 California Building Standards Commission, 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, (2016).
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 58
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Energy Conservation: Project Design Features
The project would be designed to include green building, energy saving, and water saving measures and
other sustainability features. Consistent with the CALGreen, the project would be required to meet and
comply with the residential mandatory measures that include water efficiency and conservation, material
conservation and resource efficiency, environmental quality, etc. As such, the project would be designed
to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.
Estimated Energy Consumption
The long-term operation of the project would result in transportation energy use primarily for residents
that commute to and from their place of employment. Transportation fuels, primarily gasoline, would be
provided by local or regional suppliers and vendors. As discussed previously, in 2017, California
consumed a total of 366,820 thousand barrels of gasoline for transportation, which is part of the total
annual consumption nationwide of 3,404,186 barrels by the transportation sector.16 Project-related
vehicles would require a fraction of a percent of the total state’s transportation fuel consumption. A 2008
study by Caltrans determined that the statewide average fuel economy for all vehicle types (automobiles,
trucks, and motorcycles) in 2020 would be 18.78 miles per gallon.17
Alternative-Fueled Vehicles
Alternative-fueled, electric, and hybrid vehicles could be used by some of the project residents,
commercial space employees and customers. The use of these types of alternative fueled vehicles would
reduce the overall consumption of gasoline by the project. The effect is anticipated to be minimal in
today’s current vehicle market due to the relatively few alternative vehicles that are in use. According to
the Los Angeles Times, alternative-fueled vehicles make up approximately 2.3% of all vehicles registered
in California.18 The above transportation fuel estimates for the project do not account for alternative-
fueled, electric, and hybrid vehicles, which are more energy efficient vehicles. Thus, the assessment is
a conservative estimate of transportation fuel consumption. The project would not have any wasteful,
inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during either the construction of the project
or the life of the project because the project would be required to comply with all applicable state energy
conservation measures.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less
Than Significant Impact. The project would be required by the City to comply with all applicable
CALGreen and Title 24 state energy requirements to minimize energy consumption. Therefore, the
project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local energy plan. The project would not significantly
impact an energy plan.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Director or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
16 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Table F3: Motor Gasoline Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates, 2017,
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/pdf/fuel_mg.pdf.
17 California Department of Transportation, 2008 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast (June 2009). 18 Los Angeles Times, Electric, hybrid car sales up, California auto emissions down, May 22, 2014,
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-electric-vehicle-sales-up-auto-emissions-down-20140521- story.html. Accessed August
2014.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 59
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Publication 42.) Less Than Significant Impact. A geotechnical report19 was prepared for the project
and a copy is included in Appendix B of this MND.
The project site is not located within a state-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.20
Figure 5-3 of the City of Rosemead General Plan shows the project site is not located within an
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Figure 5-4 of the City of Rosemead General Plan shows the
project is not located in a Fault Hazard Management Zone. The nearest known active regional fault
to the site is the Upper Elysian Park fault that is located approximately 1 mile southeast of the site.
While there are faults in the region that could generate moderate to significant ground shaking at the
site, the incorporation of the recommendations in section 6.0 of the geotechnical report regarding
seismic design in compliance with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and all other local building
codes would reduce potential fault impacts to less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. Because the project site is
located in Southern California and a seismically active area, there is the potential for strong ground
motion at the site. The Upper Elysian Park fault is the closest known active fault to the site and
approximately 1 mile southeast of the site. As with all projects in the City of Rosemead, the design
and construction of the project and all site improvement must comply with the current 2019 CBC and
all applicable local building codes. Project compliance with the 2019 CBC and applicable building
codes would reduce potential strong ground shaking impacts to less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact.
Liquefaction is a phenomenon when loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose their
shear strength during strong ground motions. The primary factors controlling liquefaction include
intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress
conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the
liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations.
Based on Figure 5-5 of the City of Rosemead General Plan the project site is not located within an
area that is mapped as susceptible to an earthquake induced liquefaction. Because the project site
is not located in an area that is susceptible to liquefaction, the soils report did not conduct a
liquefaction study for the site.21 The project is not subject to liquefaction and the impact due to
potential liquefaction impacts is less than significant.
iv. Landslides? No Impact. The project site ranges in elevation from a high of 366 feet above mean
sea level at the southeast corner of the site to a low of 364 feet at the northwest corner of the site, a
difference of 2 feet. Thus, the project site is basically flat and the properties that are adjacent to the
site are also basically flat. The project would not be impacted by landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The City would
require the grading and construction contractor to install and maintain all applicable City required short-
term construction soil erosion control measures to reduce and minimize soil erosion impacts throughout
project grading and construction. The contractor would be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to identify all Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be incorporated
into the project prior to the start of grading and maintained to completion of all construction activities to
reduce and minimize soil erosion. The City has standard soil erosion protection measures that the
contractor would be required to install and maintain throughout grading and construction to minimize off-
19 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Mixed Use Buildings and Associated Structures, APN 5286-022-009 &
010, 7539 & 7545 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, California, Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc.,
September 30, 2021.
20 Ibid, page 3, Section 4.1 Seismicity.
21 Ibid, page 3, Section 4.2 Seismic Inducted Hazards.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 60
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
site soil erosion. The requirement by the City for the contractor to incorporate all applicable mandated
soil erosion control measures into project construction would minimize and reduce potential soil erosion
impacts to less than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the geotechnical report the
proposed development of the project would not be significantly impacted by unstable soil due to an off-
site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or soil collapse. All grading and construction
would have to comply with all applicable requirements of the 2019 CBC and recommendations of the
geotechnical report.22
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. The
geotechnical report did not identify any expansive soils on the site. The project would not be significantly
impacted by expansive soil.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The
project would be required by the City to connect to and be served by the existing public wastewater
collection system that is located in Garvey Avenue adjacent to and south of the site. The project
developer proposes to connect to the existing public sewer system in Garvey Avenue adjacent to the
site. The project would not have any septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal impacts.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature? No Impact. The Rosemead General Plan does not identify the presence of any paleontological
resources in the City. The site was disturbed previously with the construction of a mobile home park and
residence and other site improvements that have been demolished and removed from the site. Because
the site is disturbed and paleontological resources are not known to exist in Rosemead, it is unlikely that
paleontological resources would be uncovered during project construction. The geotechnical report did
not identify any unique geologic features on the site that would potentially contain paleontological
resource and impacted by the project. The project would not have any paleontological resource or
geologic feature impacts.
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. A greenhouse gas report23 was prepared
for the project and a copy is included in Appendix A of this MND.
“Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted
by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as “global warming.”
Greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere by
transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength
heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and
regulation, Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil
22 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Mixed Use Buildings and Associated Structures, APN 5286-022-009 &
010, 7539 & 7545 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, California, Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc.,
September 30, 2021.
23 Air Quality and GHG Analysis, Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project, City of Rosemead, Ca, Giroux & Associates, October 12, 2021.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 61
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and
aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG
emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG
emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions.
California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding
greenhouse gases. AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California
has adopted. The major components of AB 32 include:
• Require the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions beginning with sources or categories of
sources that contribute the most to statewide emissions.
• Requires immediate “early action” control programs on the most readily controlled GHG sources.
• Mandates that by 2020, California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels.
• Forces an overall reduction of GHG gases in California by 25-40%, from business as usual, to be
achieved by 2020.
• Must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards
and to reduce toxic air contaminants.
Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, greater use of
renewable energy, and increased structural energy efficiency. Additionally, through the California
Climate Action Registry (CCAR or the Climate Action Reserve), general and industry-specific protocols
for assessing and reporting GHG emissions have been developed. GHG sources are categorized into
direct sources (i.e. company owned) and indirect sources (i.e. not company owned). Direct sources
include combustion emissions from on-and off-road mobile sources, and fugitive emissions. Indirect
sources include off-site electricity generation and non-company owned mobile sources.
Thresholds of Significance
Under CEQA, a project would have a potentially significant greenhouse gas impact if it:
• Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment, or,
• Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions.
Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards. CEQA
guidelines allow the lead agency to “select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate.” The
most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer
model such as CalEEMod, which was used for the GHG analysis for the proposed project.
In September 2010, the SCAQMD Governing Board Working Group recommended a threshold of 3,000
MT CO2e for all land use types. The 3,000 MT/year CO2e threshold is used for the greenhouse gas
emission analysis for the proposed mixed-use project. In the absence of an adopted numerical threshold
of significance, project related GHG emissions in excess of the guideline level are presumed to trigger a
requirement for enhanced GHG reduction at the project level.
Methodology
The CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 software model was used to calculate the GHG emissions from all
phases of the project for the year 2022, which is the scheduled date of project completion. The project's
emissions were compared to the tier 3 SCAQMD draft screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons CO2e
per year for all land uses.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 62
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction Activity GHG Emissions
During project construction, the CalEEMod2020.4.0 computer model calculates that project construction
activities would generate the annual CO2e emissions shown in Table 10.
Table 10
Construction GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e)
CO2e
Year 2022 133.4
Amortized 4.4
The SCAQMD GHG emission policy for construction activities amortizes emissions over a 30-year
lifetime. As shown, the amortized GHG emissions from the project construction activities are less than
the 3,000 MT/year CO2e threshold and less than significant.
Operational GHG Emissions
The total operational emissions of the project are shown in Table 11. As shown, the total GHG
operational emissions are below the guideline threshold of 3,000 MTY CO2e suggested by the SCAQMD.
Table 11
Annual Operational GHG Emissions, MT CO2(e) tons/year
Consumption Source MT CO2(e) tons/year
Area Sources 17.6
Energy Utilization 176.4
Mobile Source 792.8
Solid Waste Generation 20.7
Water Consumption 26.4
Construction 4.4
Total 1,038.3
Guideline Threshold 3,000
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases? No Impact. The City of Rosemead has not adopted a Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Plan. Therefore, the applicable GHG planning document that is applicable to the project
is AB-32. As discussed in Section “VIII.a” above, the project would not have a significant increase in
either construction or operational GHG emissions. The project generated GHG emissions are calculated
to be 1,038.3 MTCO2(e) tons/year and below the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2(e) tons/year threshold.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG
emissions.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. A Phase I24 Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the site. The Phase I ESA in included in Appendix C of this MND.
24 Phase I Environmental Assessment Report, 7539-7545 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, CA, Orswell & Kasman, Inc., December 5, 2019.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 63
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
The mixed-use project does not propose to transport, use, or dispose of any hazardous materials. The
only hazardous materials that would be transported and stored on the site includes the temporary storage
of hazardous materials for use by the construction contractors to operate and maintain the various types
of motor-powered construction equipment that would be operated during project grading and
construction. The types of hazardous materials that would be anticipated to be used on-site during
construction includes diesel fuel, gasoline, lubricants, paints, solvents, etc. It would be the responsibility
of the contractors to use and store all hazardous materials in compliance with applicable Federal, State,
and local laws and regulations during project construction. The project residents and commercial uses
would use standard cleaning materials to clean and maintain their residences and commercial space
during the operational life of the project. Herbicides and pesticides may be used by the homeowner’s
association to maintain project landscaping. The transportation, use, and storage of all cleaning and
maintenance hazardous materials in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations
would reduce the potential for significant impacts to less than significant. The project would not have any
significant impacts associated with the transportation, use or storage of hazardous materials.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less
Than Significant Impact. Based on historical data at the Los Angeles County Assessor’s office there
was a mobile home/trailer park built on the property at 7539 Garvey Avenue in 1920. There was also a
residence constructed on the property, however the County of Los Angeles Assessor office does not
have a record of the date of its construction. The records at the County of Los Angeles Assessor office
shows that a residence was constructed on the property at 7545 Garvey Avenue, but again no
construction date. The residence at 7539 Garvey Avenue was demolished in January 2012 and the
residence at 7545 was demolished in November 2006.25 Based on Los Angeles County data the site has
been vacant since January 2012.
The various federal, state, county and local government records search that was conducted for the
preparation of the Phase I ESA did not identify any existing or known hazardous materials or incidents
associated with the project site including Superfund site, hazardous waste generators, CalSite facilities,
landfills, hazardous deed restrictions, underground storage tanks, abandoned oil wells, or “hot spots”.26
The Phase I ESA did not find any evidence of building foundations, wastewater clarifiers, sumps, septic
tanks, pits or underground storage tanks on the site during a site inspection. In addition, there were no
signs of illegal dumping, distressed vegetation or obvious contamination observed on the site.27
Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, there are no hazardous materials associated with the project
site and no further environmental studies are required. There are no uses or activities associated with
the long-term use of the site for mixed-use development that would create or release hazardous materials
into the environment. The project would not have any significant hazardous material impacts.
b) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The closest school to
the project site is Richard Garvey Intermediate School that is located at 2720 Jackson Avenue and
approximately 0.05 miles (260 feet) southeast of the site. Ralph Waldo Emerson Elementary School is
located at 7544 Emerson Place and approximately 0.12 miles (600 feet) north of the project. The third
school within one-quarter mile of the project is Arlene Bitely Elementary school that is located at 7501
Fern Avenue and approximately 0.14 mile (730 feet) south of the project. The project does not propose
25 Phase I Environmental Assessment Report, 7539-7545 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, CA, Orswell & Kasman, Inc., December 5, 2019,
page 11.
26 Ibid, page 5.
27 Ibid, page 15.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 64
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
any use that would emit, generate or handle any hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or substances
and impact any schools within one-quarter mile of the project.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or environment? No Impact. Based on the Phase I ESA the project site is not listed as a
hazardous material site on the “Cortese” list pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.28 The
project would not have a hazardous impact to the public or environment per Government Code Section
65962.5.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people working or residing in the project area? No Impact. The closest airport to the project is
San Gabriel Valley Airport, which is approximately 5 miles northeast of the project. The project would
not impact airport operations at San Gabriel Valley Airport or result in any safety hazards for project
guests and employees. The operations at the San Gabriel Valley Airport would not have any safety or
noise impacts to the project guests and employees.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. All of the proposed project improvements
are located on private property. The project would not interfere with or impact any designated evacuation
routes in Rosemead, including Garvey Avenue and Prospect Avenue adjacent to the site. The project
driveway is at Prospect Avenue and designed to allow adequate ingress/egress to the site to minimize
any potential impact to the use of Prospect Avenue as an emergency evacuation route. The project
would not significantly impact any emergency evacuation routes in the City.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires? No Impact. There are no State of California designated wildland fire
areas in Rosemead. See section XX Wildfire for further wildland fire analysis. The project would not be
exposed to or be impacted by a wildland fire.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant
Impact. A Preliminary Hydrology Report29 and a Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan30 were
prepared for the project and a copy of each report is included in Appendix D of this MND.
During project grading and construction, silt could be generated from the site, especially if construction
occurs during the winter months from October to April when rainfall typically occurs. The City would
require the project contractor to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in
accordance with California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Order No. 99-08-
DWQ, Los Angeles County MS4 Permit Order No. R4-2021-0105 and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS004004 (Permit). The SWPPP would require the
contractor to implement Best Available Technology Economically Achievable measures to reduce and
eliminate storm water pollution from all construction activity through the implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs). The purpose of the SWPPP is to identify pollutant sources that may
affect the quality of the storm water that would be discharged from the site during all construction activity.
28 I Phase I Environmental Assessment Report, 7539-7545 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, CA, Orswell & Kasman, Inc., December 5, 2019,
page 7. 29 Preliminary Hydrology Report, 7539 Garvey Ave., Rosemead, CA 91770, Tritech Engineering Associates, January 6, 2022.
30 Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan, 7539 Garvey Ave., Rosemead, CA 91770, Tritech Engineering Associates, January 6,
2022.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 65
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
The SWPPP would require the contractor to identify, construct, and implement the storm water pollution
prevention measures and BMPs necessary to reduce pollutants that are present in the storm water that
is discharged from the site during construction. The SWPPP would include specific BMPs that must be
installed and implemented prior to the start of site clearance, grading, and construction. The installation
and maintenance of all required BMPs by the contractor during construction would reduce potential water
quality impacts to less than significant.
The project developer must comply with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los
Angeles Water Board) requirements of a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) Plan (MS4 Permit Order
No. R4-2021-0105). A MS4 plan would identify, at a minimum, the details to implement the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that would reduce the project’s Stormwater Quality Design Volume
(SWQDV) defined as the runoff from the 85th percentile, 24-hour rain event, as determined from the Los
Angeles County 85th Percentile Precipitation Isohyetal Map (http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/hydrologygis/).
The Los Angeles County MS4 Permit requires the implementation of low impact development (LID) BMPs
in addition to site design and source control measures. LID BMPs are engineered facilities that are
designed to retain or biotreat runoff on the project site. All designated projects must detain the water
quality volume on-site through infiltration, evapotranspiration, storm water runoff harvest and use, or a
combination thereof unless it is demonstrated that it is technically infeasible to do so.31
The clay material on the project site does not feasibly allow on-site percolation of rainfall. Therefore, the
project site is 100 percent impermeable.32 As a result, the project proposes to install a bio-filtration
system in the driveway along the north project boundary to capture the stormwater that would be
generated on the site. All on-site stormwater would be captured and discharged into a 377’ long, 60” in
diameter underground corrugated storage pipe that would be installed in the drive aisle along the north
project boundary. Water in the corrugated pipe would be pumped to the bio-filter system along the north
project boundary where stormwater would be treated prior to its discharge into the public storm drain
system in Prospect Avenue. The capacity of the proposed stormwater collection and bio-filtration system
is based on the Los Angeles County 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event conditions. The installation of
and the regular maintenance of the required SWPPP and the proposed on-site bio-filtration system would
reduce storm water runoff pollutants generated from the project site during both project construction and
the life of the project to less than significant.
The project developer would also be required to have a SUSMP approved by City staff prior to the
issuance of a grading permit. The purpose of the SUSMP is to identify the BMPs that would be used on-
site to control project generated pollutants from entering the storm water runoff generated from the site.
The SUSMP includes measures that would be included in the project to maximize the use of pervious
materials throughout the site to allow storm water percolation and pollutant filtration with the use of a
retention/detention basin, storm water clarifier, and catch basins with BMPs.
The installation and regular maintenance of the State required SWPPP and SUSMP would reduce the
potential impacts from storm water runoff pollutants generated from the site during both project
construction and the ongoing operation of the project to less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would be required by SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce
particulate dust during any man-made condition. In this case, Rule 403 would require the project
developer to control fugitive dust during active operations, including grading and construction. Water is
primarily used for dust suppression during project grading and construction and would be provided by
the Golden State Water Company. The amount of water that would be required to control dust during
31 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/la_ms4/2015/SWRCB_wqo2015_0075.pdf
32 Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan, Tritech Engineering Associates, Inc., January 6, 2022, page 2.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 66
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
grading and construction would be minimal and would not significantly impact existing groundwater
supplies due to the relatively small size of the project, which is approximately 0.946 acres. Due to the
small size of the project site, the loss of approximately 0.946 acres of pervious area for stormwater
percolation and groundwater recharge would not significantly interfere and substantially impact or impede
sustainable groundwater management of the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin.
The project site is currently vacant and generates approximately 3.16 cubic feet per second (cfs) of
surface water runoff during a 50-year frequency storm event.33 Because the project site is entirely
impermeable (100%), most of the existing surface water flows north to the north property line and then
flows west to Prospect Avenue where it enters into a catch basin adjacent to the site. Once developed,
the project is estimated to generate approximately 3.16 cfs of runoff during a 50-year frequency storm
event, the same as the existing condition. The project proposes to capture the on-site runoff from a 50-
year storm in a 377’ long, 60” in diameter underground corrugated storage pipe that is proposed to be
installed in the drive aisle along the north project boundary. Stormwater in the underground corrugated
storage pipe would be pumped to the bio-filter system along the north project boundary and treated prior
to its discharge into the public storm drain system in Prospect Avenue the same as the existing condition.
Therefore, the project would not increase the rate of the surface water that would be discharged from the
site during a storm compared to the existing condition.
The project site receives its water supply from the Golden State Water Company and relies on three
sources for its water supply, including local groundwater from the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin,
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District and an emergency connection with the City of
Monterey Park.34 Based on the South San Gabriel Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan,
Golden State Water Company has reliable supplies to meet its retail customer demand in normal, single
dry years, and five consecutive dry year conditions through 2045.35 The Golden State Water Company
can provide potable water to the project as stated by the following, “Upon completion of satisfactory
financial arrangements under our rules and regulations on file with the California Public Utilities
Commission, the proposed water distribution system for the above referenced subdivision will be
adequate during normal operating conditions for the water system of this subdivision as provided in
Chapter 20.16 of Title 20 of the Los Angeles County (Water Code) and as shown on the plans and
specifications approved by the Department of Public Works. This includes meeting minimum domestic
flow requirements as provided by Section 20.16.070 and minimum fire flow and fire hydrant requirements
as provided by Section 20.16.060.”36
As discussed above, the project would increase the amount of stormwater that is generated from the
project site compared to the existing condition. Similar to the existing conditions the increased project
runoff would not percolate into the on-site soils. As discussed in Section “X.a” above, all on-site
stormwater would be captured and discharged into a 377’ long, 60” in diameter underground corrugated
storage pipe that would be installed in the drive aisle along the north project boundary and pumped to
the bio-filter system along the north project boundary where stormwater would be treated prior to its
discharge into the public storm drain system in Prospect Avenue. Therefore, the project would not
deplete or increase groundwater supplies. The project would have a less than significant impact on
groundwater supplies.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner,
which would:
33 Preliminary Hydrology Report, 7539 Garvey Ave., Rosemead, CA 91770, Tritech Engineering Associates, January 6, 2022, page 6.
34 South San Gabriel Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, July 16, 2021, page ES-2.
35 Ibid, page 5-5.
36 Golden State Water Company, Kyle Snay, Operations Engineer, letter dated October 14, 2021.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 67
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? Less Than Significant Impact. During
project construction the exposed soil on the site would be subject to erosion both on and off the site
during periods of rainfall. As discussed in Section “X.a” above, the project developer would be
required to prepare a SWPPP and SUSMP and implement the BMPs of both plans to reduce and
minimize soil erosion both on and off the site. The implementation of the applicable BMPs would
reduce and minimize the amount of siltation generated from the site. Once the project is completed
and operational all surface water runoff would be collected and discharged to an on-site bio-filtration
system in the driveway along the north project boundary to capture the stormwater that would be
generated on the site. All on-site stormwater would be captured and discharged into a 377’ long, 60”
in diameter underground corrugated storage pipe that would be installed in the drive aisle along the
north project boundary. Therefore, the proposed bio-filter system would generate minimal off-site
siltation once the project is completed.
The installation of and the regular maintenance of all construction BMPs and the proposed on-site
bio-filtration system in the driveway along the north project boundary in compliance with required
SWPPP and NPDES permits would reduce and minimize both on and off-site siltation from the project
site during both project construction and the life of the project to less than significant. The project
would not have significant erosion or siltation impacts either on or off the site.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off site? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section “X.b” above, the
project would maintain the same amount of runoff that is currently generated from the site and not
increase surface water runoff greater than the existing condition. Therefore, the project would not
have any significant on- or off-site flooding impacts.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Section “X.b” above, the project would not increase the
amount of storm water runoff that is currently generated from the site. The existing storm drain system
in Prospect Avenue that would serve the project and the downstream storm water collection system
has adequate capacity to serve the volume of stormwater from the project without significantly
impacting the capacity of the existing storm water drainage system since the project would not
increase the amount of stormwater generated from site compared to the existing condition. The
proposed biofilter system would The project would not have any significant impact to the existing
storm drain system that serves the site.
The project would be required to treat surface water runoff prior to its discharge to meet Regional
Water Quality Control Board water quality requirements and provide safeguards that surface water
runoff would not provide sources of polluted runoff. As discussed in Section “X.a” above, the project
would have to meet and comply with the MS4 permit requirements of the Los Angeles Water Board
to remove and prevent most project generated pollutants from being discharge from the site. The
installation and required routine maintenance of the proposed underground stormdrain collection and
bio-filter system in compliance with the MS4 permit would treat, reduce and filter most project runoff
pollutants before discharge to the public stormwater system. As a result, the project would not
significantly impact surface water quality.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would discharge
project generated surface water into the curb and gutter in Prospect Avenue adjacent to and west of
the site at the same location as currently discharged, which is upstream of an existing catch basin
along the east side of Prospect Avenue. The existing catch basin in Prospect Avenue would receive
the same volume of stormwater runoff as the existing condition. Therefore, the existing catch basin
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 68
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
has capacity to handle the stormwater flows from the project and the project would not significantly
impede or redirect flood water flows.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. No
Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is located in
Zone X37, which are areas of moderate or minimal hazard from flooding. In addition, Figure 5-6 of the
Public Safety Element of the General Plan shows that the project is located in FEMA flood hazard zone
“X” that is designated as areas of moderate or minimal hazard from flooding. The elevation of Alhambra
Wash, which is approximately 0.42 miles (2,230 feet) east of the project and in a 100-year flood zone is
the closest potential source of floodwaters to the project. The elevation of Alhambra Wash is
approximately 267feet above mean sea level and the elevation of the project site is 364 feet above mean
sea level and approximately 164 feet higher than the Alhambra Wash channel east of the site. Therefore,
the potential for flooding at the site from Alhambra Washi is minimal.
The project is more than twenty-one miles northeast from the Pacific Ocean and approximately 364 feet
above mean sea level. Due to the distance and the elevation of the project from the Pacific Ocean the
project would not be exposed to or impacted by a tsunami. The project site and the area immediately
surrounding the site are generally flat and there are no water bodies or water tanks adjacent to or in close
proximity to the site that would impact the project due to a seiche. Because the project would not be
impacted by a flood, tsunami or seiche, the project would not be impacted by a release of pollutants
associated with a flood, tsunami or seiche.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan. Less Than Significant Impact. The project developer prepared a
Preliminary Hydrology Study and Low Impact Development calculation report for the project and a copy
of the report is included in Appendix D of this MND. The City would require the project developer to
install and implement all proposed water quality collection and surface water runoff treatment measures
listed in the report, including a bio-filtration system along the north project boundary. As a result, the
project would not conflict with or obstruct water quality control measures mandated by the state.
The Golden State Water Company provides potable water to the project site presently and would serve
the proposed project. The Golden State Water Company has an adopted an Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP)38. The primary objective of the UWMP is to describe and evaluate sources of supply,
reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities. In this case,
the UWMP provides water supply planning to the year 2045 in five-year increments and identifies water
supplies needs to meet existing and future demands. The Golden State Water Company, South San
Gabriel relies on three sources for its water supply, including local groundwater from the San Gabriel
Valley Groundwater Basin, Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District and an emergency
connection with the City of Monterey Park.39 The future water demand for its service area is based on
land use type, including single-family, commercial, institutional, industrial, etc. The UWMP also analyzed
its future water supply based on the reliability of its existing sources of water including groundwater, water
districts, recycling, etc. The UWMP states that based on projected water supply and demands over the
next 20 years, the Golden State Water Company South San Gabriel Service Area has water supply
capabilities that would be sufficient to meet expected demands through 2045 under single-dry-year and
multiple-dry year conditions.40 Therefore, the project would not significantly impact future sources of
water supply. As stated in Section “X.b)”, Golden State Water can meet minimum domestic flow
37 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=rosemead%2C%20california#searchresultsanchor 38 South San Gabriel Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, July 16, 2021.
39 South San Gabriel Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, July 16, 2021, page ES-2.
40 Ibid, page 7-7.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 69
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
requirements as provided by Section 20.16.070 and minimum fire flow and fire hydrant requirements as
provided by Section 20.16.060.”41
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project proposes to develop an infill
site that is surrounded by established commercial use to the west, east and south and single-family
detached residences to the north and multi-family to the east. The 0.946 gross acre site is vacant. The
project site includes two separate parcels (APN Nos. 5286-022-009 and 5286-022-010) and would
combine the two parcels into a single parcel. The proposed project would not physically divide the
existing land uses that are adjacent to and surrounding the site.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than
Significant Impact. The land use and zoning designations for the project site is Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan. The project is requesting a specific plan amendment and zone change to Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan, Incentivized Mixed-Use (GSP-MU).
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan designates the project site as Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and allows
neighborhood commercial use development. Thus, the proposed mixed use project is not an allowed
use for the site based on the existing Garvey Avenue Specific Plan land use designation. Therefore, the
project applicant is requesting a specific plan amendment to change the land use designation to Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-Use (GSP-MU).
The requested Garvey Avenue Specific Plan amendment would allow the proposed development of 75
residential units and 6,346 square feet of nonresidential use on the project. The requested GSP-MU land
use designation is allowed for other parcels within the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, including the area
adjacent to and west of Prospect Avenue as shown in Figure 5. As shown, the existing land uses adjacent
to the area that is designated for GSP-MU land use includes the same types of land uses that surround
the proposed project site, which includes single-family detached and commercial development. None of
the existing land uses that are adjacent to and surrounding the project site are unique to the site and
would have any significant land use impacts greater than or different from the impacts associated with
the development of mixed uses within other areas of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan that are designated
GSP-MU.
As discussed in Section “I.d)” the project meets all of the applicable GSP-MU development standards of
Table 3.4 of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, including minimum lot size, minimum lot width, mixed-use
land use split, building height and form, building relationship to the street, specific plan standards, ground
floor building design, setbacks for light, air and privacy, pedestrian-friendly auto circulation and access,
and parking.
Provision of Community Benefits
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan has provisions for Community Benefit Incentives. Community Benefit
Incentives are provided to allow developer and property owners to increase the development potential if
community benefits are identified as part of the development application, constructed as part of the
project development, and operated in perpetuity. Restrictions and/or covenants are required to be
41 Golden State Water Company, Kyle Snay, Operations Engineer, letter dated October 14, 2021
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 70
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
recorded on the property to ensure the benefits or amenities provided to earn the Community Benefit
Incentive are maintained in perpetuity.42
The Garvey Avenue Community Benefit Program is applicable to all parcels within the Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan corridor. The Garvey Avenue Community Benefit Program is based on a point system.
Each community benefit type is assigned a number of Community Benefit points. A project may earn
points from a single or multiple categories, depending on the project applicant’s preference. The number
of Community Benefit points earned is then translated into the increased density or FAR. The increase
varies by zone and land use type.43
The project includes five Community Benefit Incentives with a total of 131 earned points as shown in
Table 12. As shown, the 131 earned points allows the project a 3.0 FAR and a density of up to 80
dwelling units/acre compared to a 1.6 FAR and 25 dwelling units/acre, respectively. The project proposes
a FAR of 2.7 and a density of 75 du/acre and within the floor area ratio and density allowed for the site
with the proposed Community Benefit Incentives.
Table 12
Project Community Benefit Points
Type of Benefit Basis for Calculating
Points
Maximum
Points*
Earned
Points
FAR
Earned
Density
Earned
Lot Consolidation 2 lots consolidated into 1
parcel 35 35
Family Friendly
Development
More than 10% of housing
units as three bedroom or
larger units.
1 point for each 15 sq.
ft./unit of common area
open space above the
required minimum per the
Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan, providing the common
area open space contains at
least two of the following: tot
lot play equipment (swings,
slide, climbing structure),
community garden, or
library.
50
30
20
Nonresidential
component of
Mixed-use
development
sites
In order to provide for
significant opportunities for
national and regional retail
tenants, a bonus shall be
granted if the nonresidential
component of a mixed-use
site provides for tenant
space with an average size
of 2,000 s.f. or more
(minimum size of 800 s.f. for
each tenant space), then the
project will receive a 5%
increase in residential to
20 20
42 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, February 2018, page 3-19.
43 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, February 2018, page 3-29.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 71
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
make the split 70%
residential to 30%
commercial.
Public Parking 2 Points: For every 1
standard sized parking
space marked for public use
and permanently available
for public use, provided the
project meets the minimum
number of required public
and private spaces, per this
Specific Plan or the City of
Rosemead
50 6 – 3 stalls
Sustainable
Design
40 Points: If 50% or more of
total building roof is an
accessible, operational eco
roof.
30 Points: LEEDTM
Platinum, CALGreen Tier 2,
or equivalent (third-party
certification required)
20 Points: LEEDTM Gold,
CALGREEN Tier 1, or
equivalent (third-party
certification required)
The increased density or
intensity will be granted to
the qualifying building not
the entire development or
site area.
The project will be
conditioned to ensure
compliance and
construction in accordance
with LEED Platinum, LEED
Gold, CALGreen Tier 2, or
CALGreen Tier 1.
70
20 –
CALGreen
Tier 1
Total
Points
131 3 80 du/acre
• Maximum points allowed by Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
The project meets the development standards for the GSP-MU zone, with the exception of the mixed-
use land use split. Based on Table 3.4 of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, a floor-area land use mix of
65% residential use and 35% nonresidential use is allowed for mixed-use development. However,
applicants can deviate from this standard by proposing to incorporate community benefit amenities as
depicted in Table 3.5 of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. Specifically, the community benefit amenity
that an applicant has to incorporate into its project to obtain a deviated floor-area land use mix is shown
below.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 72
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Type of Benefit
Provided for the
Community Benefit
Incentive
Maximum
Points
Basis for Calculating Points
Nonresidential
Component of Mixed-
Use Development
Sites
20 In order to provide for significant opportunities for national
and regional retail tenants, a bonus shall be granted if the
nonresidential component of a mixed-use site provides for
tenant space with an average size of 2,000 s.f. or more
(minimum size of 800 s.f. for each tenant space), then the
project will receive a 5% increase in residential to make the
split 70% residential to 30% commercial.
The project applicant proposes to utilize the community benefit incentive as shown above. Thus, the
Rosemead Planning Division is granting the project applicant an increase of up to 5% for the proposed
residential use of the project. The applicant is proposing a floor-area land use mix of 68% residential and
32% nonresidential, which is allowed and in compliance with the land use mix allowed by the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan utilizing the community benefit amenity.
Zoning
The project site is zoned Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP). The purpose of the Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan (GSP) zoning district is to facilitate and support a vibrant neighborhood commercial district
accommodating a diverse range of retail, service, and office businesses, with a focus on businesses that
support the needs of the local community. The GSP zoning area is intended to encourage the
development of attractive retail areas where people can walk for dining, groceries, shopping, limited
personal services, community and social services, and social activities and gatherings. Uses will have
active retail storefronts with glass windows, open storefronts, and setbacks for outdoor dining, thus,
offering pedestrians a varied and interesting experience.44
The GSP zone for the site allows a maximum FAR of 0.75 without the Provision of Community Benefits
and 1.0 with the Provision of Community Benefits. Therefore, the 0.946 gross acres (41,235 square feet)
site could be developed with up to 30,926 square feet of commercial, public, and open space use without
the Provision of Community Benefits and 41,235 square feet of commercial, public and open space use
with the Provision of Community Benefits.
The proposed mixed use project is not an allowed use with the existing GSP zone. Therefore, the project
applicant is requesting a zone change to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-Use (GSP-
MU) to allow the mixed-use development for the site. The requested GSP-MU zoning allows the
development of mixed-use including residential, commercial, public and open space land uses. As shown
in Table 3.2 of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, the GSP-MU zoning allows a maximum of 25 dwelling
units per acre without the Provision of Community Benefits and a maximum of 80 dwelling units per acre
with the Provision of Community Benefits and a mixed-use maximum FAR of 1.6 and 0.75 commercial
use without the Provision of Community Benefits and a mixed-use maximum of 3.0 and 1.0 commercial
with the Provision of Community Benefits.
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Amendment
The project also includes an amendment to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan permitting sit-down
restaurants with a minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an Administrative Use Permit for
44 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, page 3-4.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 73
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
beer/wine sales in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) and Garvey Avenue Specific Plan,
Incentivized Mixed -Use (GSP-MU) zones. This proposed Amendment would continue to require a
Conditional Use Permit for all other on-site alcohol sales for sit-down restaurants less than 6,000 square
feet.
The project is located in the GSP-MU zone and proposes 6,346 square feet of nonresidential use. The
current Garvey Avenue Specific Plan development standards allows the development of a regional or
national chain sit-down restaurant with alcohol sales and a minimum of 6,000 square feet to operate
without a CUP in the GSP and GSP-MU zones. The current Garvey Avenue Specific Plan development
standards would allow one regional or national chain sit-down restaurant with alcohol sales in the project’s
proposed 6,346 square feet of nonresidential space. The Amendment would allow multiple sit-down
restaurants with beer/wine sales with an AUP in the 6,346 square feet of nonresidential space rather than
one sit-down restaurant. The proposed Amendment would continue to require all sit-down restaurants
to meet the requirements of RMC 17.30.040 for alcohol beverage sales and RMC 17.04.050 for the
definition of a sit-down restaurant and require a Conditional Use Permit for all other on-site alcohol sales
for sit-down restaurants less than 6,000 square feet.
The proposed Amendment would assist the business community within the boundary of the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan some relief from economic hardships that they are facing with the COVID-19
pandemic. The change from 6,000 square feet of minimum space to 1,000 square feet of minimum space
for sit-down restaurants with beer/wine sales would be consistent with the development standards for sit-
down restaurants with beer/wine sales in the FCMU.
If approved, the proposed Amendment would assist the proposed Prospect Villa project the opportunity
to attract more sit-down restaurants with beer/wine sales within its nonresidential space. The proposed
Amendment would not have any significant land use impacts since sit-down restaurants with beer/wine
sales are already allowed in the GSP and GSP-MU zones.
The project is not anticipated to have any significant land use or zoning impacts.
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state? No Impact. The State Mining and Geology Board classify land in
California on the availability of mineral resources. There are four Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ)
designations in California for the classification of sand, gravel, and crushed rock resources (MRZ-1, MRZ-
2, MRZ-3, MRZ-4). According to the Rosemead General Plan Update the project site is within the MRZ-
4.45 The MRZ-4 classification states these are “Areas where available information is inadequate for
assignment to any other MRZ zone”.46 As Rosemead is completely urbanized and the State has not
identified any significant recoverable mineral resources within the City, no mineral extraction activities
are permitted within the City limits. There are no mining activities on the site or any of the properties
surrounding and adjacent to the site. The project would not have an impact to mineral resources of value
to the region or residents of the state.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. As discussed above in
Section “XII.a” above, the project site is not located within an area of known mineral deposits. In addition,
the geotechnical report that was prepared for the project site did not identify any mineral deposits in any
of the five on-site soil borings. The project would not result in the loss of and not impact any locally
important mineral resources.
45 Rosemead General Plan, Figure 4-2 Mineral Resources Map.
46 Ibid.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 74
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated. A noise report47 was prepared for the project and is included in Appendix E of this MND.
The site is vacant and as a result there is no noise generated from the site. Noise sources in the
immediate project area impacting the project site includes traffic on Garvey Avenue adjacent to and south
of the site, traffic on Prospect Avenue adjacent to and west of the site, the daily activities of the
commercial uses west, south and east of the site and typical daily noise associated with the single-family
detached residences north of the site. The residences adjacent to and north of the site do not generate
noise levels that impact the site due to the low intensity of noise that is typically generated by residential
development.
Noise Compatibility Guidelines
The City of Rosemead takes into account noise compatibility standards when evaluating land use
development projects. A proposed land use must be compatible with the ambient noise environment,
particularly with noise sources that the City does not have direct control such as motor vehicles on public
streets and roads, aircraft, and trains. Since the City cannot regulate the noise levels from the sources,
the City exercises its land use decision authority to ensure that noise/land use incompatibility is
minimized.
The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound pressure levels. Although decibels are most commonly
associated with sound, "dB" is a generic descriptor that is equal to ten times the logarithmic ratio of any
physical parameter versus some reference quantity. For sound, the reference level is the faintest sound
detectable by a young person with good auditory acuity.
Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire auditory spectrum,
human response is factored into sound descriptions by weighting sounds within the range of maximum
human sensitivity more heavily in a process called “A weighting,” written as dB(A). Any further reference
to decibels written as "dB" should be understood to be A weighted.
Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal
to the energy content of the time varying period (called LEQ), or alternately, as a statistical description of
the sound pressure level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. Finally,
because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at
night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time
noise levels in a 24 hour noise descriptor called the Ldn (day-night) or the Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL).
The City of Rosemead considers noise exposures for residential/transient lodging use to be “normally
acceptable” if the maximum exterior noise level is 60 dBA CNEL or less. Exterior residential noise levels
of up to 70 dBA CNEL are allowed if a noise analysis is conducted to identify possible noise reduction
measures. Noise levels above 70 dBA CNEL are considered normally unacceptable, except in unusual
circumstances for residential use. These standards apply to outdoor recreational uses such as
backyards, patios and balconies.
An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR,
Title 24, Part 6, Section T25-28) for multiple family dwellings, hotel and motel rooms. In 1988, the State
47 Noise Impact Analysis, Prospect Villa Mixed Use Project, Giroux & Associates, October 12, 2021.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 75
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Building Standards Commission expanded that standard to include all habitable rooms in residential use,
included single-family dwelling units. Since normal noise attenuation within residential structures with
closed windows is 25-30A dB, an exterior noise exposure of 70-75 dBA CNEL allows the interior standard
to be met without any specialized structural attenuation (dual paned windows, etc.), but with closed
windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning in order to maintain a comfortable living
environment.
Noise Standards
For noise generated on one property affecting an adjacent use, the City of Rosemead limits the amount
of noise that can cross the boundary between the two uses. There are residential uses adjacent to and
north of the site. The noise standards described below must be met at the residential units north of the
site.
For regulated on-site sources of noise generation, the Rosemead noise ordinance prescribes limits that
are considered an acceptable noise exposure for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources.
The L50 metric used in the Rosemead noise ordinance is the level exceeded for 50% of the measurement
period of thirty minutes in an hour. One-half of all readings may exceed this average standard with larger
excursions from the average allowed for progressively shorter periods. The larger the deviation, the
shorter the allowed duration up to a never-to-exceed 20 dB increase above the 50th percentile standard.
Nighttime noise levels limits are reduced by 5 dB to reflect the increased sensitivity to noise occurring
during that time period.
The City’s L50 noise standard for residential use is 60 dB during the day (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.), and 45 dB
at night (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.). For commercial use the L50 standard is 65 dB during the day (7 a.m. – 10
p.m.), and 60 dB at night (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.). These noise standards for residential and commercial uses
are shown in Table 13. Should the ambient noise level exceed any of the noise standards, the standards
shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level.
Table 13
Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits
(Exterior Noise Level not to be Exceeded)
Residential Use Commercial Use
Maximum Allowable
Duration of
Exceedance
7 AM to 10 PM
(Daytime)
10 PM to 7 AM
(Nighttime)
7 AM to 10 PM
(Daytime)
10 PM to 7 AM
(Nighttime)
30 minutes/Hour (L50) 60 dB 45 dB 65 dB 60 dB
15 minutes/Hour (L25) 65 dB 50 dB 70 dB 65 dB
5 minutes/Hour (L8) 70 dB 55 dB 75 dB 70 dB
1 minute/Hour (L1) 75 dB 60 dB 80 dB 75 dB
Never (Lmax) 80 dB 65 dB 85 dB 80 dB
Source: Municipal Code Section 8.36.060
Rosemead Municipal Code 8.36.030(A)(3) restricts hours of construction to hours of lesser noise
sensitivity with heavy equipment to not operate from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. during the week and on Saturdays,
and not exceed 65 dBA at any residential property line. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or
Federal Holidays.
Baseline Noise Levels
Short-term (15-minute) baseline noise measurements were taken on Wednesday, September 29, 2021
at approximately 1:15 pm to 1:45 pm at two locations to document the existing noise levels due to
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 76
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
activities in the immediate project vicinity. The existing noise levels are shown in Table 14. The
measured noise levels provide a basis to calculate the noise levels that project residents would be
exposed to with the existing noise generating activities in the area. The location of the noise
measurements are shown in Figure 17.
Table 14
Short-Term Measured Noise Levels (dBA)
Site No. Location Leq Lmax Lmin
1 50-feet to the centerline of Prospect Avenue 60 66 49
2 60 feet to the centerline of Garvey Avenue 64 67 56
Figure 17
Noise Measurement Locations
Based on previous noise monitoring experience, 24-hour weighted CNELs can be reasonably estimated
from mid-day noise measurements. Thus, CNELs are approximately equal to Leq plus 2-3 dBA (Caltrans
Technical Noise Supplement, 2009). This indicates a CNEL along the Prospect Avenue project frontage
of approximately 63 dBA CNEL and 67 dBA CNEL along the Garvey Avenue project frontage.
The City of Rosemead considers CNELS of up to 70 dBA to be conditionally acceptable for residential
use with the requirement of a noise analysis. Noise levels of up to 75 dB CNEL are considered to be
conditionally acceptable for commercial use. However, unless commercial projects include noise-
sensitive uses such as outdoor dining, exterior noise exposure is generally not considered a facility siting
constraint.
Meter 1
Meter 2
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 77
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Noise impacts are considered significant if they result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity
of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies.
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people living or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts may be significant if they create either a substantial permanent noise level increase or a
temporary noise level increase. The term "substantial" is not quantified in CEQA guidelines. In most
environmental analyses, "substantial" means a level that is clearly perceptible to humans. In practice,
this is at least a +3 dB increase. Some agencies, such as Caltrans, require substantial increases to be
+10 dB or more if noise standards are not exceeded by the increase. For purposes of this analysis, a
+3 dB increase is considered a substantial increase. The following noise impacts due to project-related
traffic would be considered significant:
1. If construction activities were to audibly intrude into adjacent sensitive uses.
2. If project traffic noise were to cause an increase by a perceptible amount (+3 dB CNEL) or expose
receivers to levels exceeding city compatibility noise standards.
3. If future build-out noise levels were to expose sensitive receivers to levels exceeding compatibility
standards of 65 dB CNEL exterior at any outdoor uses or 45 dB CNEL interior noise levels in any
habitable space.
Sensitive Receptors
The closest noise sensitive land uses to the project site are the residential units adjacent to and north of
the site. There are also residences northwest and south of the site, south of Garvey Avenue.
Temporary Noise Impacts
The existing noise levels on the site and the noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the site would
increase temporarily during project construction. Short-term construction noise would be generated
during grading and the construction of the proposed site improvements. Noise would also be generated
by construction workers commuting to the site, the delivery of materials and supplies to the site and the
operation of on-site construction equipment, etc.
Temporary construction noise impacts vary markedly due to the noise level range of the various types of
construction equipment, its activity level and the distance from the equipment to the closest noise
sensitive land use. Short-term construction noise impacts typically occur in discrete phases dominated
by earth-moving equipment that would be used for site demolition and grading operations to construction
and paving equipment that generates less noise than the heavier demolition and earth-moving
equipment.
In 2006, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the Roadway Construction Noise Model
that includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emissions levels. In
addition, the database provides an acoustical usage factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of
construction equipment is operating at full power during a construction phase. The usage factor is a key
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 78
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
input variable that is used to calculate the average Leq (Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level)
noise levels.
Table 15 shows the anticipated construction fleet required to construct the project. The table is organized
by construction activity and lists the equipment that is associated with each activity. Table 15 also shows
the noise level for each individual piece of equipment at a reference 50-foot distance.
Table 15
Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Phase Name Equipment Usage
Factor1
Measured Noise
@ 50 feet (dBA)
Cumulative
Noise
@ 50 feet (dBA)
Grading
Dozer 40% 82 78
Grader 40% 85 81
Loader/Backhoe 37% 78 74
Building
Construction
Forklift 20% 75 68
Loader/Backhoe 37% 78 74
Crane 16% 81 73
Welder 46% 74 71
Paving
Paver 50% 77 74
Paving Equip 40% 76 72
Roller 38% 80 76
Loader/Backhoe 37% 78 74
Source: FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006
1. Estimates the fraction of time each piece of equipment is operating at full power during a construction operation
As shown in Table 15, typical hourly average construction generated noise levels would average
approximately 68 dBA to 81 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the project site. The construction
noise levels would be reduced at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per the doubling of the distance between
the noise source and a receptor. Shielding by existing buildings and/or terrain often results in lower
construction noise levels at distant receptors. The potential for project construction-related noise levels
to impact adjacent and nearby residential receptors would depend on the location and proximity of the
on-site construction activities to these off-site receptors.
Table 16 shows the adjusted maximal noise levels from the operation of on-site construction equipment
at 50 feet to the closest noise sensitive receptors that are approximately 10 feet from the common
property line of the project site. The project proposes to construct a six-foot tall decorative masonry wall
along both the north and east project boundaries. The noise levels in Table 16 take into account a 4
dBA reduction in noise levels associated with the construction of the six-foot tall decorative masonry
walls.
Table 16
Construction Noise Exposure at Adjoining Sensitive Noise Receptor (dBA Leq)
Phase Equipment
Noise Levels
at Residences
to the North
Grading
Dozer 88
Grader 79
Loader/Backhoe 70
Building
Construction
Forklift 66
Loader/Backhoe 72
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 79
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Crane 71
Welder 69
Paving
Paver 84
Paving Equip 68
Roller 72
Loader/Backhoe 70
As shown in Table 16, only the operation of the dozer during project grading would exceed the City of
Rosemead adopted 85 dBA Leq significance threshold if the equipment is operated directly adjacent to
the shared property line with the residents adjacent to and north of the site. None of the other construction
activities would exceed the adopted 85 dBA Leq significance threshold. Some of the residents north of
the project could experience noise nuisance during construction activity. However, the construction noise
levels would be temporary and limited to the duration of the construction at any one location within the
site. The temporary noise impacts would cease once each component of construction is completed. The
project is proposed to be constructed in a single phase so once construction is completed the construction
noise levels would cease.
Construction would be restricted to the hours of construction as allowed by Rosemead Municipal Code
8.36.030(A)(3) that restricts hours of construction to hours of lesser noise sensitivity with heavy
equipment to not operate from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. during the week and on Saturdays, and not exceed 65
dBA at any residential property line. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or Federal Holidays.
As shown in Table 14 the existing ambient noise level on the site at the two noise measurement locations
are 66 and 67 dBA and greater than the city standard of 65 dBA. Therefore, the existing noise levels on
the project site due to traffic along the project frontage at Prospect Avenue and Garvey Avenue exceed
the city daytime noise standard of 65 dBA.
Rosemead Municipal Code 8.36.060(B)(1) restricts interior noise levels of residential receptor properties
to 45 dBA. As stated earlier, the noise levels in Table 16 take into account the proposed six-foot tall
masonary decorative wall along the north project boundary that would attenuate and reduce the exterior
noise levels to the residential units adjacent to and north of the site by approximately 4 dBA. Furthermore,
typical residential construction materials and methods reduce exterior noise levels to interior noise levels
by approximately 20-25 dBA. In this case, when taking the existing six-foot wall along the north project
boundary and typical residential construction materials and methods into account, the interior noise levels
of the residential units adjacent to and north of the project site would not exceed interior noise levels of
45 dBA as restricted by Rosemead Municipal Code 8.36.060(B)(1). Therefore, although off-site
construction noise levels are calculated not to exceed 85 dBA except for the operation of dozers during
project grading, interior noise levels would not exceed 45 dBA in compliance with Rosemead Municipal
Code 8.36.060(B)(1).
In order to minimize construction noise levels to the residential units adjacent to and north of the site the
following noise measures are recommended:
Mitigation Measure No. 8 All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and other
suitable noise attenuation devices (e.g., engine shields).
Mitigation Measure No. 9 Grading and construction contractors shall use rubber-tired equipment
rather than track equipment, to the maximum extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure No. 10 If feasible, electric hook-ups shall be provided to avoid the use of
generators. If electric service is determined to be infeasible for the site, only
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 80
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
whisper-quiet generators shall be used (i.e., inverter generators capable of
providing variable load.
Mitigation Measure No. 11 Electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel
equipment shall be used, where feasible.
Mitigation Measure No. 12 Generators and stationary construction equipment shall be staged and
located as far from the adjacent residential structures as feasible.
Mitigation Measure No. 13 Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor
vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for
more than 5 minutes.
Mitigation Measure No. 14 A sign shall be posted in a readily visible location at the project site that
indicates the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as
provide a telephone number where residents can enquire about the
construction process and register complaints to an assigned construction
noise disturbance coordinator.
Mitigation Measure No. 15 Dozers shall not operate within 25 feet of the north property line.
Motor Vehicle Noise Impacts
Off-Site Project-Related Vehicular Noise Impacts
Traffic counts for Garvey Avenue are available from the traffic impact analysis that was prepared for the
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR48. The closest traffic counts to the project site are at the intersection
of Jackson Avenue and Garvey Avenue, which is one block east of the proposed project. Therefore, the
traffic noise impacts to the project from off-site traffic are based on traffic counts at the intersection of
Garvey Avenue and Jackson Avenue. The calculated noise levels on Garvey Avenue in close proximity
to the project site are shown in Table 17. The on-site noise levels were calculated at a distance of 50-
feet from the centerline of Garvey Avenue. The analysis is conservative as it overlays all 657 project
generated traffic trips in east and west directions equally along Garvey Avenue since trip distribution
profiles for the site in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan traffic impact analysis were not available.
Table 17
Traffic and Associated Noise Levels for Existing and Future Time Frames
Time Frame
Daily Number of
Vehicles*
Estimated Noise Level (dBA
CNEL)
Garvey East of
Site
Garvey West of
Site
Garvey East of
Site
Garvey West of
Site
Existing No Project 20,100 19,130 68.2 68.0
Existing With Project 20,757 20,757 68.3 68.3
Future No Project 19,890 18,940 68.2 67.9
Future With Project 20,547 19,597 68.3 68.1
Future With Specific Plan
Buildout 29,450 27,490 69.9 69.6
*Estimated to be 10 x PM peak hourly ADT
48 Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead, CA, May 26, 2016.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 81
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
The proposed project in either the opening year or future time frames would not significant increase the
traffic noise level on the project site or the immediate project vicinity. As shown in Table 18, the project
is calculated to have a maximum noise level increase of approximately of +0.3 dBA and a net noise level
of -1.6 dBA compared to the estimated traffic noise levels along Garvey Avenue in the project vicinity by
the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan traffic impact analysis. As shown in Table 18, the project traffic noise
level increase by the project compared to the noise levels that would be generated based on the
development allowed for the site by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan are less than significant.
Table 18
Traffic Noise Impact Comparison
Scenario Evaluated Garvey Avenue East
of Project Site
Garvey Avenue West
of Project Site
Existing With Project vs Existing No Project +0.1 dBA +0.3 dBA
Future With Project vs Future No Project +0.1 dBA +0.2 dBA
Future With Project vs Future With Specific Plan -1.6 dBA -1.5 dBA
Site Operational Noise
The project driveway is located at the northwest corner of the site at Prospect Avenue. The drive aisle
is approximately 33-feet wide. After entering the drive aisle motor vehicles turn right into one of two
driveways to enter the parking areas within the building.
Based on the AM and PM traffic volumes at the project driveway in the traffic report, the on-site noise
levels during the AM and PM peak hours at the project driveway is estimated to be 46.3 dBA Leq. The
proposed six-foot tall decorative masonry wall along the north project boundary would provide
approximately -4 dBA of noise attenuation for a net noise level to the residents adjacent to and north of
the project is 42.3 dBA Leq.
The City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance limits noise from a private property adjacent to a residential use
to not exceed 60 dBA Leq at the property line. Therefore, the peak hour project traffic would not exceed
the City’s noise standard. Additionally, the measured noise level on Prospect Avenue adjacent to the
site was 60 dBA Leq. Therefore, the project traffic noise level would not be audible over the existing
background traffic noise level on Prospect Avenue adjacent to the site. As a result, the project generated
noise level impacts to the existing land uses adjacent to the project would be less than significant.
The mechanical equipment that is proposed for the project, including air conditioners, fans, etc. is
proposed for the roof of the building and shielded from adjacent land uses by a 5-foot parapet screen.
The mechanical equipment would generate noise levels that are typically generated by the type of
equipment that would be used for a mixed-use project and would be required to comply with all applicable
regulatory requirements in terms of noise. The mechanical equipment for the project would be screened
by a proposed 5-foot high parapet screen and the noise levels from the operation of the rooftop
mechanical equipment would not significantly impact on-site residents or existing residents adjacent to
the project site. Therefore, the noise impacts by the operation of on-site mechanical equipment would
be less than significant.
On-Site Traffic Noise
Along the Garvey Avenue frontage, the first story is proposed for commercial use. Residential units are
proposed for the second through seventh floors and recessed and have a greater setback distance to
the traffic on both Garvey Avenue and Prospect Avenue. The minimum project setback at the ground
level of the project is 55-feet from the centerline of Garvey Avenue. Based on the measured noise levels
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 82
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
on Garvey Avenue, the estimated traffic noise level along the project frontage on Garvey Avenue would
be less than 70 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline with the project. It is not anticipated that
residential balconies would observe exterior traffic noise levels of above 70 dBA CNEL. The recreational
space is comprised of common open space along the northern perimeter, the courtyards above the
parking levels, the lounge, and balconies would have noise levels less than 70 dBA CNEL.
Based on the above analysis the project would not have any significant temporary (construction) or
permanent (operational) noise level impacts.
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. There are residential homes adjacent to and north of the
project and commercial uses to the east, west of Prospect Avenue and south of Garvey Avenue. The
site is subject to occasional ground borne vibration due to heavy trucks that travel on Garvey Avenue
and Prospect Avenue adjacent to and south and west of the site, respectively. Any vibration levels on
the site from the occasional passing of heavy trucks on Garvey Avenue and Prospect Avenue are short-
term in duration. Since the project site is vacant existing vibrations at the site do not impact any existing
on-site uses.
Construction Activity Vibration
Construction activities generate ground-borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over unpaved
surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement, such as grading. The effects of ground-borne vibration
include discernable movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or
hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. Vibration related problems generally occur due to resonances
in the structural components of a building because structures amplify groundborne vibration. Within the
“soft” sedimentary surfaces of much of Southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped.
Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors49
Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures.
Vibration thresholds have been adopted for major public works construction projects, but these relate
mostly to structural protection (cracking foundations or stucco) rather than for human annoyance. A
vibration descriptor commonly used to determine structural damage is the peak particle velocity (ppv)
and defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration signal, usually
measured in in/sec. The range of vibration levels is shown in Table 19.
Table 19
Human Response to Transient Vibration
Average Human Response ppv (in/sec)
Severe 2.00
Strongly perceptible 0.90
Distinctly perceptible 0.24
Barely perceptible 0.03
Source: Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2013.
Over the years, numerous vibration criteria and standards have been suggested by researchers,
organizations, and governmental agencies. As shown in Table 20, according to Caltrans and the FTA,
the threshold for structural vibration damage for modern structures is 0.5 in/sec for intermittent sources,
which include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile
drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. Older residential structures have a 0.3 in/sec threshold. To
be conservative, the damage threshold of 0.3 in/sec for older residential structures was used in this
49 Federal Transit Administration 2006.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 83
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
vibration analysis to determine potential vibration impacts to adjacent buildings. Below this level there is
virtually no risk of building damage.
Table 20
FTA and Caltrans Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria
Building Type PPV (in/sec)
FTA Criteria
Reinforced concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5
Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12
Caltrans Criteria
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 0.5
New residential structures 0.5
Older residential structures 0.3
Historic old buildings 0.25
Fragile Buildings 0.1
Extremely fragile ruins, ancient monuments 0.08
The calculated vibration levels that would be generated by the operation of the various types of
construction equipment that are anticipated to operate on the site are shown below in Table 21.
Table 21
Estimated Vibration Levels During Project Construction
Equipment
PPV
at 25 ft
(in/sec)
PPV
at 40 ft
(in/sec)
PPV
at 50 ft
(in/sec)
PPV
at 60 ft
(in/sec)
PPV
at 75 ft
(in/sec)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.044 0.031 0.024 0.017
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.037 0.027 0.020 0.015
Jackhammer 0.035 0.017 0.012 0.009 0.007
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
The calculation to determine PPV at a given distance is:
PPV distance = PPVref*(25/D)^1.5
Where:
PPVdistance = the peak particle velocity in inches/second of the equipment adjusted for distance,
PPVref = the reference vibration level in inches/second at 25 feet, and
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.
The closest residence adjacent to the project boundary is 10 feet from the shared north property line. As
shown in Table 21, the calculated vibration levels generated by construction equipment such as a large
bulldozer would be slightly above levels that could create structural damage of older residential structures
(i.e., 0.3 in/sec) if a bulldozer were to operate at the north property line. Large bulldozers would not likely
operate directly at the shared property line to limit potential damage to the wall, therefore, effects of
vibration such as rattling windows is not anticipated to occur at the existing structures adjacent to the
project site. In the event that such equipment may pass directly along the property line of adjacent
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 84
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
residences, vibration effects would only slightly exceed the “barely perceptible” response range, and for
a very limited time, which would not be considered substantial.
Although grading vibrations to the residents adjacent to and north of the project are not anticipated to
have any significant vibration impacts to the residents, the implementation of Mitigation Measure No. 15
is recommended to reduce potential vibration impacts to less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no
private airstrips or public airports in the project vicinity or the City of Rosemead. The closest airport to
the project is El Monte Airport, which is approximately 5 miles northeast of the project. Operations at El
Monte Airport would not expose project employees, customers or residents to excessive noise levels.
The project would not be impacted by noise levels at El Monte Airport due to the distance of the airport
from the project.
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned 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)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes 6,346 square feet of
nonresidential use on the first floor and 75 residential units on the first through seventh floors. Of the 75
residential units, 30 are live-work units and 45 are apartments. The 30 live-work units are proposed for
the first four floors and the 45 apartments are proposed for the fifth through seventh floors. The project
includes 17 two-bedroom live-work units, 34 two-bedroom apartments, 4 two-bedroom loft live-work units,
9 three-bedroom live-work units, 10 three-bedroom apartments and 1 four-bedroom apartment.
The project is estimated to generate approximately 281 residents based on 3.74 persons per household
and the average number of people for all household types in the City of Rosemead.50 It is anticipated
that the proposed live-works and apartments would generate less than 3.74 persons per the average
household in Rosemead, which includes single-family detached units. Therefore, the number of residents
that would be generated by the project is anticipated to be less than 281 people. It is anticipated that
many of the future project residents are existing Rosemead residents and currently live in Rosemead.
Existing Rosemead residents that move to and relocate from their existing residence in Rosemead to the
project would not increase the city’s population. For those future project residents that currently live
outside Rosemead and would move to the site, the city’s population is not anticipated to increase
significantly due to the project.
The project would incrementally increase the city’s population. However, it is not anticipated the project
would induce a substantial unplanned population growth in Rosemead either directly or indirectly since it
is anticipated that some of the future project residents are current city residents and the number of future
residents that move to Rosemead from outside the city would be minimal. Therefore, the project is not
anticipated to significantly increase the city’s population.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project site is vacant and would not displace any
existing residential units or residents. As a result, no existing residents would have to find replacement
housing. The project would not have an impact to any existing residents.
50
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dof.ca.gov%2FForecasting%2FDemographics%2FEstimates
%2FE-5%2Fdocuments%2FE-5_2021_InternetVersion.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK, January 1, 2021.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 85
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
i. Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services are provided by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department. The construction of the proposed mixed-use building would be
required to meet all applicable 2019 California Building and Fire Codes would minimize the need for
fire protection service calls at the site by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The project would
not have any significant impacts to the Los Angeles County Fire Department.51
ii. Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection services are provided by the
Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. The Temple Sheriff’s Station located at 8838 Las Tunas
Drive serves the project site. Compared to the existing vacant site condition, the project would
increase calls for police protection. While the project would incrementally increase police service
calls, the project is not anticipated to significantly impact the Los Angeles County Sheriff
Department.52
iii. Schools? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located in the Garvey School District and
serves students from pre-K to 8th grade. The project would generate students to schools in the Garvey
School District that include Ralph Waldo Emerson Elementary School located at 7544 Emerson Place
and Richard Garvey Intermediate School located at 2720 Jackson Avenue. The project is in the
Alhambra Unified School District and students grades 9-12 would attend San Gabriel High School
located at 801 S. Ramona Street in San Gabriel. The Alhambra Unified School District has capacity
to serve the students generated by the project.53
Both school districts collect a development fee for residential and commercial development. The
student impact fee is used by schools to provide additional classrooms to accommodate the students
generated by residential and commercial/industrial development projects. The project developer
would be required to pay the State mandated student impact fee to each District before building
permits would be issued for construction. Payment of the required development fee would reduce
impact of the students generated by the project to the Garvey School District and Alhambra Unified
School District to less than significant.
iv. Parks? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest City of Rosemead public park to the project is
Garvey Park that is located at 3233 Kelburn Avenue and approximately 0.42 miles northeast of the
project. Garvey Park includes a water park, baseball fields, tennis courts, playground, an open field,
bar-b-ques, picnic tables, gym, etc.
The project is required by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan to provide 11,250 square feet of common
open space, 300 square feet of additional common open space for the Community Benefit credit and
2,062 square feet for the commercial space. The project proposes 6,245 square feet more common
open space than required by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
The project is also required by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan to provide 5,625 square feet of
private open space and proposes 9,633 square feet of private open space. The project proposes
51 Specialist Chris Rudiger, Los Angeles County Fire Department, telephone conversation, October 11, 2021.
52 Lt. Jose Hernandez, Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, telephone conversation, October 20, 2021.
53 George Murray, Alhambra Unified School District, letter dated October 21, 2021.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 86
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
4,008 square feet of private open space in the form of private patios and more space than required
by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. The project proposes more public and private open space than
required for the site.
It is anticipated that any existing Rosemead residents that move to the project would not significantly
increase their use of City park and recreational facilities. For those residents that move to the site
from outside Rosemead, there could be an increase in the use of City park and recreational facilities.
It is anticipated that most of the project residents would not use City park and recreational facilities to
a level that would significantly impact the existing facilities.
The project developer would be required to pay the city-required development impact fee as required
by RMC Chapter 17.170.010. The development impact fee could be used by the City to provide park
facilities as allowed by RMC Chapter 17.170.090, which includes the purchase of land, design,
construction, equipment, etc. as deemed necessary to serve city residents, including project
residents. The payment of the required development impact fee by the project developer would
reduce potential park and recreational impacts to less than significant.
v. Other public facilities? No Impact. There are no public facilities or services that would be impacted
by the project.
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not significantly impact recreation
facilities. Please see Public Services Section “XV.a.iv” above.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than
Significant Impact. As discussed in Public Services Section “XV.a.iv” above, the project does not
propose the construction of any on-site recreational facilities. However, as discussed in Public Services
Section “XV.a.iv” above, the project would be required to pay the city-required park fee as required by
RMC 12.44.020. The park fee would be used by the City at its discretion to either expand existing
recreational facilities or acquire new parkland. The project does not require the construction or the
expansion of other recreational facilities that would impact the environment.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. A traffic report54
was prepared for the project and is included in Appendix F.
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis55 calculated the trip generation of the
development potential of the Specific Plan (i.e., square feet of floor area for non-residential uses such as
commercial and industrial and the number of residential units) from the existing land uses to the
development allowed by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan area was
categorized into traffic analysis zones (TAZs) to calculate the traffic that would be generated by its
buildout. The project site is located within TAZ 2165-1, which is one of the eleven TAZs.
54 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 Project Transportation Assessment, Ganddini Group, Inc., October 5, 2021.
55 Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead, CA August 29, 2014, KOA Corporation.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 87
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
The trip generation change for each TAZ was calculated based on existing development and a realistic
future buildout scenario and a maximum buildout scenario based on development allowed by the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan.56 Based on the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Table 22 shows the calculated trip
generation for both the realistic and maximum buildout scenarios for TAZ 2165-1, which includes the
proposed project site.
Table 22
Existing TAZ 2165-1 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Trip Generation
Specific Plan Realistic Buildout1
Trips Generated
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Commercial 268 168 436 130 135 265 7,265
Residential 2 9 11 8 5 13 130
Total 270 177 447 138 140 278 7,395
Specific Plan Maximum Buildout2
Trips Generated
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Commercial 492 311 803 238 249 487 13,356
Residential 4 17 21 16 9 25 273
Total 496 328 824 254 258 512 13,629
Notes:
(1) Source: Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR (KOA Corporation, May 26, 2016),
Table 7.
(2) Source: Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR (KOA Corporation, May 26, 2016);
Table 12.
As shown in Table 22, TAZ 2165-1 was forecast to generate 7,395 daily vehicle trips under the realistic
buildout scenario, including 447 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 278 vehicle trips during the
PM peak hour and 13,629 daily vehicle trips under the maximum buildout scenario, including 824 vehicle
trips during the AM peak hour and 512 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.
To determine the trip generation for the project site within TAZ 2165-1 all of the APNs and their associated
land square footage were calculated. Table 23 shows the square footage for each APN and the
percentage of the APN square footage to the total square footage within TAZ 2165-1. As shown in Table
23, the project site is 10.56% of the total square footage of TAZ 2165-1.
56 Significant impacts and subsequent mitigation measures for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan were based on the realistic buildout
scenario.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 88
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Table 23
TAZ 2165-1 Parcel Matrix
Assessor Parcel Number
(APN)2
Land Square Footage
(SF)2
Percentage of APN to
Total TAZ
5286-020-023 99,650 25.48%
5286-020-017 19,958 5.10%
5286-020-018 36,762 9.40%
5286-020-026 22,946 5.87%
5286-020-004 12,043 3.08%
5286-020-003 12,550 3.21%
5286-020-002 28,005 7.16%
5286-020-001 24,365 6.23%
5286-020-030 19,812 5.07%
5286-020-035 39,681 10.15%
5286-022-010 (Project) 30,611 7.83%
5286-022-009 (Project) 10,695 2.73%
5286-022-008 9,092 2.32%
5286-022-002 8,881 2.27%
5286-022-005 3,863 0.99%
5286-022-004 4,306 1.10%
5286-022-003 7,837 2.00%
Total 391,057 100.00%
Proposed Project APNs 41,306 10.56%
Notes:
(1) Source: Traffic Impact Analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR (KOA Corporation, May 26, 2016); Figure 10. (2) Data based on Los Angeles County Assessor Portal.
Table 24 shows the project trip generation for the project site based on 10.56% of the total area of TAZ
2165-1. As shown, the project site is estimated to generate approximately 781 daily vehicle trips under
the realistic buildout scenario, including 47 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 30 vehicle trips
during the PM peak hour and 1,440 daily vehicle trips under maximum buildout scenario, including 87
vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 54 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.
Table 24
Existing TAZ 2165-1 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Trip Generation – Project APNs
Specific Plan Realistic Buildout1
Trips Generated
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Commercial 28 18 46 14 14 28 767
Residential 0 1 1 1 1 2 14
Total 28 19 47 15 15 30 781
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 89
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Specific Plan Maximum Buildout1
Trips Generated
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Commercial 52 33 85 25 26 51 1,411
Residential 0 2 2 2 1 3 29
Total 52 35 87 27 27 54 1,440
Notes:
(1) The share of the total Garvey Avenue Specific Plan trip generation allocated to the project APNs was
determined based on the project's total APN square footage as a percentage of all APNs in TAZ
2165-1 (10.56%; see Table 2) multiplied by the total trip generation for TAZ 2165-1 (see Table 1).
Project Trip Generation
Table 25 shows the trip generation for the project based upon trip generation rates from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). As shown in Table 25, the
project is calculated to generate approximately 657 daily vehicle trips, including 42 vehicle trips during
the AM peak hour and 41 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Table 4 also shows internal capture
and pass-by trip adjustments in accordance with standard industry practice for mixed-use development.
Table 25
Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation Rates
Land Use
Source1 Unit2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily % In % Out Rate % In % Out Rate
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) ITE 221 DU 23% 77% 0.37 61% 39% 0.39 4.54
Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) ITE 822 TSF 60% 40% 2.36 50% 50% 6.59 54.45
Trips Generated
Land Use
Quantity Unit2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 75 DU 6 21 27 18 11 29 341
Internal Capture (-28%PM in; -
18%PM out) [a] 0 0 0 -5 -2 -7 -7
Subtotal - External Residential
Trips 6 21 27 13 9 22 334
Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) 6.346 TSF 9 6 15 21 21 42 346
Internal Capture (-10%PM in; -
24%PM out) [a] 0 0 0 -2 -5 -7 -7
Subtotal - External Retail Trips 9 6 15 19 16 35 339
Pass-by Trips (-40%PM) [1] 0 0 0 -8 -8 -16 -16
Subtotal - Retail with Pass-By
Adjustment 9 6 15 11 8 19 323
TOTAL NEW PROJECT TRIPS 15 27 42 24 17 41 657
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 90
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
(1) Source:
ITE= Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual (101h Edition, September 2021); ### = Land Use Code(s).
[a] = ITE Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition, 2017). Internal capture rates calculated in accordance with procedures in the handbook. The daily internal
capture is equal to the sum of the peak hour values.
(2) DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Trip Generation Comparison
Table 26 shows the trip generation comparison between the proposed project and the estimated share
of trips allocated to the project site within TAZ 2165-1 based on the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan TIA.
As shown, the project is calculated to generate approximately 124 fewer daily trips, including 5 fewer
trips during the AM peak hour and 11 more PM peak hour trips compared to the trips generated by the
project site in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan TIA for the realistic buildout scenario. As also shown,
the project is calculated to generate approximately 783 fewer daily trips, including 45 fewer trips during
the AM peak hour and 13 fewer trips during the PM peak hour, compared to the trips generated by the
project site in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan TIA for the maximum buildout scenario.
Table 26
Project Trip Generation Comparison to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan TIA/EIR
Specific Plan Realistic Buildout1
Trips Generated
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Existing Specific Plan (Project APNs)1 28 19 47 15 15 30 781
Proposed Project2 15 27 42 24 17 41 657
Difference
-
13 +8 -5 +9 +2 +11 -124
Specific Plan Maximum Buildout1
Trips Generated
Land Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Existing Specific Plan (Project APNs)1 52 35 87 27 27 54 1,440
Proposed Project2 15 27 42 24 17 41 657
Difference
-
37 -8 -45 -3 -10 -13 -783
Notes:
(1) See Table 24
(2) See Table 25
Impact Assessment for Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Change
The project is calculated to generate fewer vehicle trips compared to both the realistic and maximum
buildout scenarios analyzed in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan TIA for the site, except during the PM
peak hour under the realistic buildout scenario. In this case the project is calculated to generate 11 more
PM peak hour trips. The additional 11 PM peak hour trips are nominal and are not anticipated to
significantly impact the level of service (LOS) analysis at any area intersections, significantly impact
findings or adopted traffic mitigation measures in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR. Even if all 11
PM peak hour trips were added to a critical traffic movement, the increase in intersection capacity
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 91
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
utilization (ICU) would be approximately 0.007 and not significantly impact any intersection ICUs as
shown below:
• New Avenue/Garvey Avenue: With mitigation, this intersection was forecast to operate at LOS
during the PM peak hour (0.785 ICU). The intersection would continue to operate at LOS C with
an increase of 11 PM peak hour trips by the project (i.e., 0.007 ICU).
• Jackson Avenue/Garvey Avenue: This intersection was forecast to operate at LOS C during the
PM peak hour (0.787 ICU). This intersection would continue to operate at LOS C with an increase
of 11 PM peak hour trips by the project (i.e., 0.007 ICU).
The project would not result in any new or greater traffic impacts or required new mitigation measures
than identified by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR.
Criteria for The Preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis
Level of Service (LOS) Screening
According to the City of Rosemead Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (February 2007) “[the City TIA
Guidelines”], certain types of projects, because of their size, nature, or location, are exempt from the
requirement of preparing a traffic impact analysis. The City of Rosemead has established guidelines for
assessing Level of Service (LOS) impacts for General Plan operational compliance. As stated in the
Rosemead TIA Guidelines, a traffic impact analysis must be prepared when the project is forecast to
generate 50 or more net new vehicle trips during either the AM or PM peak hour. As shown in Table 26,
the project is calculated to generate fewer than 50 net new AM or PM peak hour trips and is therefore
exempt from preparation of a Level of Service analysis based on the City adopted guidelines.
Based on the above traffic analysis, the project would not have any significant operational traffic impacts.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? No Impact. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) addresses project vehicle miles
traveled (VMT). The traffic study that was prepared for the project includes a VMT analysis.57
California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) directs the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for evaluating transportation impacts to
provide alternatives to Level of Service that “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the
development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” The 2020 CEQA
Guidelines, specifically Section 15064.3, recommends the use of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) as the
primary metric for the evaluation of transportation impacts associated with land use and transportation
projects. In general terms, VMT quantifies the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to
a project or region. All agencies and projects in California are required to utilize CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3 that requires VMT to evaluate transportation impacts as of July 1, 2020.
The CEQA Guidelines allow a lead agency the discretion to establish the VMT methodologies and
thresholds, provided there is substantial evidence to demonstrate that the established procedures
promote the intended goals of the legislation. Where quantitative models or methods are unavailable,
Section 15064.3 allows agencies to assess VMT qualitatively using factors such as availability of transit
and proximity to other destinations. The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on
Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (State of California, December 2018) [“OPR Technical
Advisory”] provides technical considerations regarding methodologies and thresholds with a focus on
office, residential, and retail developments as these projects tend to have the greatest influence on VMT.
57 Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 Project Transportation Assessment, Ganddini Group, Inc., October 5, 2021, p. 12.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 92
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
The VMT analysis for the project is based on adopted City of Rosemead VMT guidelines.58 Consistent
with recommendations in the OPR Technical Advisory, the City of Rosemead established screening
criteria for certain projects that may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact and includes
projects located in low-VMT generating areas. The City’s TIA Guidelines specify the following screening
steps: 1) Project Type Screening; 2) Low VMT Area Screening; and 3) Transit Priority Areas Screening.
Project Type Screening Some project types have been identified as having the presumption of a less
than significant impact as they are local serving by nature, or they are small enough to not warrant
assessment.
The retail component of the project satisfies the City-established project type screening for local serving
retail and may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact. Transit Priority Area (TPA)
Screening Projects located within a TPA (half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an
existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact
absent substantial evidence to the contrary. There are currently no TPA areas within the City of
Rosemead. Therefore, the project does not satisfy the City-established screening criteria for projects
located within a TPA.
Low VMT Area Screening
Residential and office projects located within a low VMT generating area may be presumed to have a
less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment-
related and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably
be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the
existing land uses in the low VMT area. A low VMT area is defined as an individual traffic analysis zone
(TAZ) where the total daily VMT is lower than 15% below the baseline total daily VMT.
According to the maps in Rosemead Resolution No. 2020-22 (June 9, 2020), the project is located in a
low VMT area 15% or more below San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) average daily
residential home-based VMT per capita for Rosemead (2012), in a low VMT area 15% or more below
SGVCOG average daily home-based VMT per employee for Rosemead (2012) and in a low VMT area
15% or more below SGVCOG average daily VMT per service population for Rosemead (2012). The
project is located within all three low VMT areas and meets the 15% or more below SGVCOG baseline
VMT criteria.
Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
Projects within a TPA (half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a
high-quality transit corridor) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial
evidence to the contrary. Since there are currently no TPA areas within the City of Rosemead the project
does not meet the City-established screening criteria for projects within a TPA.
As a result, the project is located in three low-VMT generating areas and satisfies the screening criteria
for a low-VMT generating area. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant VMT impact.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. Access
to the project is provided from Prospect Avenue by a two-way driveway at the north end of the site. The
proposed driveway would allow northbound right-turns in and northbound right-turns out of the site. The
project would allow southbound left-turns into and southbound right-turns out of the site at Prospect
Avenue.
58 City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, October 2020.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 93
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Truck Access and Circulation
Service trucks for the commercial uses would have site access from Prospect Avenue by the driveway
at the north end of the site. The project driveway at Prospect Avenue is 26 feet wide. The height of the
two-way driveways into the parking areas of the building is 14 feet in height and 25 feet wide and would
allow access for project residents, employees, small delivery trucks, emergency personnel, and garbage
trucks adequate access to the parking areas and trash receptacles within the building. Delivery trucks
would be limited to a maximum height of 10 feet for access into the parking areas for trash pick-up and
commercial use deliveries.
Truck deliveries shall occur only during off-peak hours so that any potential conflict between trucks and
customers of the project site land uses would be minimal.
There are no proposed driveways, curves, dangerous intersections, or site access designs that would
significantly impact traffic or have significant circulation hazards.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. The existing public streets
and circulation system that serve the site would continue to provide adequate emergency vehicle access
for the project. The proposed project driveway at the north project boundary at Prospect Avenue is 26
feet wide and open with no height restriction. Police, fire, paramedic/ambulance, and other emergency
vehicles would have adequate site access to respond to on-site emergencies to the site via the proposed
project driveway. As stated in section “VII. c)” above, the proposed project driveway at Prospect Avenue
would be reviewed by the city, including the police and fire departments, to ensure the driveway has
adequate widths and turning radius for emergency vehicles to safely enter and exit the site prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The project would not significantly impact emergency access to the site.
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k).
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As required by AB 52, the City mailed
letters to the area Native American Indians that are on record with the City that may have cultural
resources associated with the site. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh
Nation) submitted a letter to the City requesting consultation.
Because the project site lies within the ancestral tribal territory of the Kizh Nation, tribal cultural
resources could exist on the site. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce
potential impacts to Tribal resources, if present.
Mitigation Measure No. 16 Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the
project site, the project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor
approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. A
copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of
Rosemead Planning and Building Department prior to the issuance of
any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The
Tribal monitor shall only be present on-site during the construction
phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbing
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 94
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
activities are defined by the Tribe as activities that may include, but are
not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree
removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the
project area. The Tribal Monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs
that shall provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including
construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials
identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing
activities on the project site are completed, or when the Tribal
Representatives and Tribal Monitor have indicated that all upcoming
ground-disturbing activities at the project site have little to no potential
to impact Tribal Cultural Resources.
Mitigation Measure No. 17 Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources, construction activities
shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the
surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. All Tribal Cultural
Resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by the
qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the Consulting
Tribe. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting
Tribe shall retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems
appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If human
remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the project
site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the county
coroner shall be notified per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98,
and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and
grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public
Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue on
other parts of the project site while evaluation and, if necessary,
mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). If a non-
Native American resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist
to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,”
time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of
avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The
treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and
PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of
treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may
include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to
remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and
analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native
American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with
a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an
institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical
society in the area for educational purposes.
Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential tribal cultural
resource impacts to less than significant.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 95
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As
discussed in section “XVIII.a.i.” above, the project could significantly impact tribal resources if present.
The implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to
tribal resources to less than significant.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities,
the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than
Significant Impact. Water is currently provided to the project site by the Golden State Water Company.
There is an existing 10-inch water main in Garvey Avenue adjacent to the site that would serve the
project. The 10-inch water main has capacity to provide the required potable water supply and fire flow
for the project without the need to construct new water supply facilities or expand existing facilities. An
existing 8-inch sewer line in Prospect Avenue adjacent to the site has existing capacity to serve the
project. Wastewater in the existing 8-inch sewer line flows south to Garvey Avenue and then east in
Garvey Avenue and connects to an existing 27-inch diameter sewer trunk line in San Gabriel Boulevard
that is owned by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. Wastewater in the 27-inch sewer line flows
to the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant located in the City of South El Monte, which has capacity
to treat the wastewater from the project.59 All other utilities required to serve the project, including storm
drainage, electricity, natural gas and telecommunications are located in Prospect and Garvey Avenues
and have capacity to serve the project and would not have to be relocated. The project would not have
any significant public utility impacts.
The project is estimated to consume approximately 14,031 gallons of water per day as shown in Table
27. The project is estimated to generate approximately 13,762 gallons per day of wastewater.60 The
project water and wastewater needs can be accommodated by the existing facilities and construction of
new or expanded water or wastewater facilities would not be required. The project would be required to
install State mandated low flow water fixtures to minimize water consumption and wastewater generation.
The project will not require the construction of any sewer or water lines and have any significantly
environmental impacts.
Table 27
Estimated Project Water Consumption
Use Units/Sq. Ft. Consumption Rate61 Consumption
Residential 75 units 160 gallons/day/unit 12,000 gallons/day
Retail 6,346 sq. ft. 320 gallons/day/1,000 sq. ft. 2,031 gallons/day
Total 14,031 gallons/day
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. Potable
water is provided to the project site by the Golden State Water Company. As shown in Table 23, the
project is estimated to consume approximately 14,031 gallons of water per day. Based on the Golden
State Water Company, South San Gabriel Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, July 16,
59 Ms. Donna Curry, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, letter dated October 19, 2021.
60 Ibid.
61 City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 96
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
2021 the Golden State Water Company has an adequate water supply to meet the demand of the project
into the future. The project would have a less than significant impact on water supply.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. Please see Section “XIX.a” above.
d) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would generate more solid waste from the
site than the current uses due to an increase in the amount of development proposed for the site
compared to the existing development on the site. The solid waste from the project would be hauled to
the Puente Hills Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in the City of Whittier and operated by the Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County. The MRF separates recyclable material from municipal solid waste and
all residual waste is hauled to permitted landfills and all recovered recyclable materials are recycled. The
Puente Hills MRF is permitted to accept up to 4,400 tons per day (8,800,000 pounds/day) of municipal
solid waste. The project is estimated to generate approximately 126 pounds per day of solid waste of
which approximately 50% is recycled and the remaining 50% is hauled to a permitted landfill. The
municipal solid waste generated by the project is not anticipated to significantly impact the permitted
capacity of any Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts landfills. Solid waste collection will be required
to conform to RMC 17.74.050(B)(7) in terms of collection hours, trash enclosures, screening, etc. The
project will not have any significant solid waste impacts.
Once the project is constructed and operational, it is estimated to generate approximately 383 pounds of
solid waste per day.62 Of the 383 pounds, approximately 50%, or 192 pounds per day would be recycled
and the balance of non-recycled material would be hauled to a permitted landfill. The 192 pounds of
solid waste that is estimated to be generated by the project represents a nominal amount of the solid
waste that would be hauled to a landfill that would serve the project. Therefore, the impact of the solid
waste generated by the project would be less than significant.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than
Significant Impact. The City of Rosemead complies with all Federal, State, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste. The project would not have any solid waste impacts because the
residents and commercial uses would be required to comply would all applicable solid waste statues and
regulations and large quantities of solid waste would not be generated.
XX. WILDFIRE: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No
Impact. The project does not propose any improvements that would impair or impact any emergency
response or emergency evacuation plan associated with an emergency response to a fire in the closest
Local Responsibility Area (LRA) or State Responsibility Area (SRA) fire hazard zones.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no moderate, high or very high fire hazard severity
zones in an SRA within the City of Rosemead.63 The closest SRA designated fire hazard zone is the
open space in Turnball Canyon located approximately four miles southeast of the project and outside the
City. There are also no Very High Fire Hazard Safety Zones in a LRA in the City of Rosemead. The
62 https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, Residential - 4 pounds/day/unit, Commercial – 13
pounds/1,000 sq. ft/day.
63 https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6705/fhszs_map19.pdf
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 97
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
closest LRA designated Very High Fire Hazard Safety Zone is the open space in the City of Whittier
located approximately three miles southeast of the project. While the project is not within or adjacent to
any LRA or SRA fire hazard areas, Santa Ana winds could expose project occupants and employees to
smoke and other pollutants associated with wildfires located the LRA and SRA fire hazard areas
southeast of the project. However, that exposure would not be site specific because much of the City of
Rosemead and the general geographic area would be also be exposed and not the project site
specifically. The project would not expose project occupants or employees to significant pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds or other factors.
c) Reguire the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The project would be
required by the 2019 CBC to install fire sprinklers. However, the project would not be required to install
and maintain any roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities to protect
the project and the immediate area from a wildfire because the project is not located in a Moderate, High
or Very High fire hazard zone as discussed in Section “XX. a.” above.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result or runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. As
discussed in Section “XX. a.” above, the project is not located within a Moderate, High or Very High fire
SRA or LRA hazard zone. The project site as well as the area surrounding the project site are relatively
flat and there are no slopes or flooding that could impact the project site due to landslides as a result of
slope runoff, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes. Therefore, the project would not be exposed
and impacted by secondary impacts of a wildfire.
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially
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? Less Than
Significant Impact. The 0.946-acre site is vacant and not developed. The site is sparely vegetated and
the vegetation that is present includes introduced urban landscape materials. There are no rare,
endangered, or sensitive plants or wildlife on the site that would be impacted by the project. The site is
vacant, therefore there are no existing buildings that represent California history or prehistory that would
be impacted by the project. The project would not significantly impact biological resources and would
have no historical resource impacts.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Rosemead
has identified eleven projects that, along with the proposed project, could have cumulative impacts. The
cumulative projects are shown in Table 28 and their locations are shown in Figure 18.
LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page 98
Mitigated Negative Declaration – February 16, 2022
Table 28
Cumulative Projects
Address Proposed Project Status
#1 - 7419-7459 Garvey
Avenue
20,000 sq. ft. commercial use and 218
residential units Plans Being Revised
#2 - 7801-7825 Garvey
Avenue
Mixed Use with 15,903 sq. ft. of commercial
(office, retail, restaurant) and 60 residential
units
Building Plan Check
#3 - 8002 Garvey Avenue
Mixed Use with 87,919 sq. ft. of commercial
hotel, office, retail, restaurant) and 92
residential units
Plans Being Revised
#4 - 8408 Garvey Avenue
Mixed Use with 11,500 sq. ft. of commercial
(office and retail) and 46 residential units,
including 7 low-income apartments
Under Construction
#5 - 8449 Garvey Avenue
Mixed Use with 7,200 sq. ft. commercial (office,
retail, restaurant) and 35 residential units,
including
6 low-income apartments
Under Construction
#6 - 8900 Glendon Way Five story Hampton Inn & Suites Hotel with 123
guest rooms Building Plans Approved
#7 - 3133-3141 Willard
Avenue 31 residential units Entitled
#8 - 500 Montebello
Boulevard
Six story Marriott Dual Hotel with 199 guest
rooms Entitlements Submitted
#9 - 3035 San Gabriel
Boulevard
Mixed Use with 51,711 sq. ft. commercial and
144 residential units Site Plan Review
#10 - 4316 Muscatel Avenue 10 condominiums Entitlements Submitted
#11 - 8399 Garvey Avenue Proposed 15,000 sq. ft. medical clinic Entitled
#12 – 3001 Garvey Avenue Mixed use with 18,646 sq. ft. of commercial
and 42 condominiums Entitled
Based on the air quality report, the short-term construction emissions and the long-term operational
emissions of the project would not exceed any adopted air emission thresholds. Therefore, the project
would not have any significant short-or long-term cumulative air quality impacts. The project would not
have any individual or cumulative noise or traffic impacts. In addition, the project would not have any
significant impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultural, biological resources, cultural resources,
hazardous, hydrology, soils and geology, land use, public services, utilities or wildfire that along with the
cumulative projects listed in Table 2817.74 would not result in any significant cumulative impacts.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no significant
impacts associated with the proposed project that would cause substantial adverse effects and
significantly impact human beings either directly or indirectly.
VILLA SERENA | CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEYPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Figure 12Trip Distribution
N
Source: Stantec
PROSPECT VILLA | CITY OF ROSEMEAD
N
12
Figure 18
Cumulative Project Location Map
Project
Site
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE PROJECT
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 21-01, ZONE CHANGE 21-01
Lead Agency:
City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
(626)-569-2140
Project Proponent:
Del Mar Properties
120 E. Valley Boulevard
San Gabriel, CA 91776
(626) 307-0062
Environmental Consultant:
Phil Martin & Associates
1809 E. Dyer Road, Suite 301
Santa Ana, California 92705
(714) 454-1800
February 22, 2022
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 1
1.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
1.1 Introduction
This is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Prospect Villa
Mixed-Use project. It has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public
Resources Code §21081.6 which, among other things, states that when a governmental
agency adopts or certifies a CEQA document that contains the environmental review of
a proposed project, “The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program
for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order
to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring
program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.”
The City of Rosemead is the lead agency for the project, and is therefore, responsible
for administering and implementing the MMRP. The decision-makers must define
specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements that will be enforced during project
implementation and prior to final approval of the project.
1.2 Project Overview
The project is located on a 0.946-gross acre vacant site at the northeast corner of the
intersection of Garvey Avenue and Prospect Avenue and proposes the development of
a seven–story mixed-use development that totals 97,775 square feet that includes
6,346 square feet of nonresidential (retail/restaurant) use on the first floor and 75
residential units on the first through seventh floors. Of the 75 residential units, 30 are
live-work units, including 4 live-work units on the ground level, 5 live-work units on the
second floor, 7 live-work units on the third floor and 14 live-work units on the fourth
floor. The project proposes 45 apartments on the fifth through seventh floors with 16
apartments on the fifth floor, 15 apartments on the sixth floor and 14 apartments on the
seventh floor. The project includes 17 two-bedroom live-work units, 34 two-bedroom
apartments, 4 two-bedroom loft live-work units, 9 three-bedroom live-work units, 10
three-bedroom apartments and 1 four-bedroom apartment.
The project proposes a total of 110,496 square feet of residential, commercial and
access and hallway space on the 41,235 square foot site that results in a floor area ratio
(FAR) of 2.7 compared to a maximum allowed FAR of 3.0 with the allowed provisions of
community benefits by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. The building footprints covers
32,672 square feet of the project site, or approximately 79.2 percent of the site.
The project proposes 12,547 square feet of landscaping, or 30 percent of the site and
includes drought tolerant shrubs and ground cover, accent street trees, accent benches,
and decorative planter pots in a 5-foot wide parkway amenity zone along both Prospect
Avenue and Garvey Avenue adjacent to the site. Landscaping is proposed for the
courtyards of the fourth through seventh floors of the building and includes 24”x36” high
planter walls. The project proposes 147 parking spaces, including 110 standard
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 2
spaces, 32 compact spaces, 4 handicap accessible spaces and 1 loading space. Of the
147 parking spaces, 42 parking spaces are proposed for the ground floor, 57 parking
spaces are proposed for the second level and 48 parking spaces are proposed for the
third level. The project proposes 3 more parking spaces for public parking than required
by the Rosemead Municipal Code and consistent with the requirements of the
community benefit program. The project also proposes 14 bicycles spaces. The height
to the building to the top of the roof is 75 feet. The total height of the building, including
the top of the parapet, is 80 feet.
A driveway is proposed along the north project boundary to provide one point of
vehicular access to the site from Prospect Avenue. A driveway that extends along the
north project boundary would provide vehicular access from Prospect Avenue. The
Prospect Avenue entry provides an entrance to the ground level parking area and
access to ramps that provide vehicular access to parking on the second and third floor
parking areas. The vehicular access driveway at Prospect Avenue is 26-foot wide and
open with no height restriction. However, there is a 12-foot height restriction for access
from the north site driveway into the ground floor parking. All delivery vehicles for the
nonresidential space on the ground level would enter the site from Prospect Avenue
and park in a designated loading area on the ground level for site deliveries. Delivery
trucks would be restricted to two axle trucks. Delivery trucks would not be allowed to
park along either Prospect Avenue or Garvey Avenue.
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Amendment
The project includes an amendment to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan permitting sit-
down restaurants with a minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an
Administrative Use Permit for beer/wine sales in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan
(GSP) and Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed -Use (GSP-MU) zones.
This proposed Amendment would continue to require a Conditional Use Permit for all
other on-site alcohol sales for sit-down restaurants less than 6,000 square feet.
The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the
development of a sit-down restaurant in both the GSP and GSP-MU zones. The
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan states that for eating and drinking establishments with
“On-Sale” ABC license, “A regional or national chain restaurant larger than 6,000
square feet to serve alcohol without a CUP in the GSP-MU zone, provided that a valid
license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) is
obtained.” Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.04.050 (Definitions - General)
defines a "Restaurant, Sit-down" as “an establishment engaged in the business of
selling food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages, prepared on site for primarily
on-site consumption. Food and beverages are served to the customer at a fixed
location (i.e., booth, counter, or table). Food and beverages are ordered from a menu.
Customers typically pay for food and beverages after service and/or consumption. The
sale or service of sandwiches, whether prepared in the kitchen or made elsewhere and
heated on the premises, or snack foods, shall not constitute a sit-down restaurant.”
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 3
The City recently adopted the Freeway Corridor Mixed-Use Overlay (FCMU) that
encompasses six geographic areas within Rosemead. The areas total approximately
60 acres (186 parcels) and were selected based on proximity to the Interstate 10 (I-10)
Freeway, location along primary City corridors, and adjacency to public transit lines.
FCMU Overlay areas are located along Del Mar Avenue, San Gabriel Boulevard,
Walnut Grove Avenue, Valley Boulevard, Temple City Boulevard, and Rosemead
Boulevard. The FCMU Overlay identifies special provisions for land use, development
standards, urban design, community benefits, and by -right uses, in addition to those in
the existing underlying base zone, to support appropriate mixed-use and residential
development. The FCMU Overlay also identifies public and private realm improvements
that will further enhance the aesthetic and character of these areas.
Similar to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, the FCMU Overlay requires a CUP for the
development of an eating and drinking establishment with an “On-Sale” ABC license in
both the FCMU-Corridor (FCMU-C) and FCMU-Block (FCMU-B) overlay zones. As
shown in Table 2-1 Permitted Uses of the FCMU, “a sit-down restaurant larger than
1,000 square feet is permitted to serve beer/wine with an AUP (Administrative Use
Permit), provided that a valid license from ABC is obtained. See RMC 17.30.040 for
additional information related to alcohol beverage sales and RMC 17.04.050 for
definition of a sit-down restaurant.” To be consistent with the FCMU and assist the
development community in Rosemead with relief for businesses that are facing
economic hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic, including the Prospect Villa project
applicant, the City proposes the Amendment to allow a sit-down restaurant with
beer/wine sales larger than 1,000 square feet, in the GSP and GSP-MU zones with an
AUP. A sit-down restaurant would also have to meet the requirements of RMC
17.30.040 for alcohol beverage sales and RMC 17.04.050 for the definition of a sit-down
restaurant.
The project site is also requesting a specific plan amendment from Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan ( GSP) to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-Use (GSP-MU) and a zone
change from Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized
Mixed-Use (GSP-MU).
1.3 Monitoring and Reporting Procedures
This MMRP includes the following information: (1) mitigation measures that will either
eliminate or lessen the potential impact from the project; (2) the monitoring milestone or
phase during which the measure should be complied with or carried out; (3) the
enforcement agency responsible for monitoring mitigation measure compliance; and (4)
the initials of the person verifying the mitigation measure was completed and the date of
verification.
The MMRP will be in place through all phases of a project including project design
(preconstruction), project approval, project construction, and operation (both prior to and
post-occupancy). The City will ensure that all monitoring is documented through
periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 4
environmental monitor will track and document compliance with mitigation measures,
note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to rectify problems.
Each mitigation measure is listed and categorized by impact area, with an
accompanying discussion of:
• The phase of the project during which the measure should be monitored;
❑ Project review and prior to project approval
❑ During grading or building plan check review and prior to issuance of a
grading or building permit
❑ On-going during construction
❑ Throughout the life of the project
• The enforcement agency; and
• The initials of the person verifying completion of the mitigation measure and
date. The MMRP is provided as Table 1 (Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting
Program).
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 5
Table 1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation
Measure
No.
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Milestone
Enforcement
Agency
Verification of
Compliance
Aesthetics
1. Prior to the issuance of a
building permit the project
applicant shall submit a
lighting plan for approval by
the Planning Division that
incorporates any of the
following light reducing
measures as applicable:
• Select lighting fixtures with
more-precise optical control
and/or different lighting
distribution.
• Relocate and/or change the
height and/or orientation of
proposed lighting fixtures.
• Add external shielding and/or
internal reflectors to fixtures.
• Select lower-output
lamp/lamp technologies
• A combination of the above.
Prior to the
issuance of
a building
permit.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Air Quality
2. Prior to the start and
throughout project
construction, the contractor
shall implement and maintain
the following fugitive dust
control measures:
• Apply soil stabilizers or
moisten inactive areas.
• Water exposed surfaces as
needed to avoid visible
dust leaving the
construction site (typically
2-3 times/day).
• Cover all stockpiles with
tarps at the end of each
day or as needed.
• Provide water spray during
loading and unloading of
earthen materials.
• Minimize in-out traffic from
construction zone.
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt,
sand, or loose material and
Prior to the
start of
construction
and on-
going during
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 6
require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of
freeboard.
• Sweep streets daily if visible
soil material is carried out
from the construction site.
3. Throughout project
construction the contractor
shall:
• Utilize well-tuned off-road
construction equipment.
• Establish a preference for
contractors using Tier 3 or
better heavy equipment.
• Enforce 5-minute idling limits
for both on-road trucks and
off-road equipment.
Throughout
project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Cultural Resources
4. The project developer shall
retain a qualified professional
archaeologist who meets U.S.
Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and
Standards, to conduct an
Archaeological Sensitivity
Training for construction
personnel prior to
commencement of excavation
activities. The training session
shall be carried out by a
cultural resource professional
with expertise in archaeology,
who meets the U.S. Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards.
The training session shall
include a handout and will
focus on how to identify
archaeological resources that
may be encountered during
earthmoving activities and the
procedures to be followed in
such an event, the duties of
archaeological monitors, and
the general steps a qualified
professional archaeologist
would follow in conducting a
salvage investigation if one is
necessary.
Prior to the
start of
excavation
activities.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 7
5. In the event that
archaeological resources are
unearthed during ground-
disturbing activities, ground-
disturbing activities shall be
halted or diverted away from
the vicinity of the find so that
the find can be evaluated. A
buffer area of at least 50 feet
shall be established around
the find where construction
activities shall not be allowed
to continue until a qualified
archaeologist has examined
the newly discovered
artifact(s) and has evaluated
the area of the find. Work
shall be allowed to continue
outside of the buffer area. All
archaeological resources
unearthed by project
construction activities shall be
evaluated by a qualified
professional archaeologist,
who meets the U.S. Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards.
Should the newly discovered
artifacts be determined to be
prehistoric, Native American
Tribes/Individuals shall be
contacted and consulted, and
Native American construction
monitoring shall be initiated.
The project developer and the
City shall coordinate with the
archaeologist to develop an
appropriate treatment plan for
the resources. The plan may
include implementation of
archaeological data recovery
excavations to address
treatment of the resource
along with subsequent
laboratory processing and
analysis.
Throughout
project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Cultural Resources
6. The project developer shall
retain a qualified professional
archaeologist, who meets the
Prior to the
start of
excavation
City of
Rosemead
Building
_____________
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 8
U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and
Standards to conduct periodic
Archaeological Spot Checks
beginning at depths below 2’
feet to determine if
construction excavations have
exposed or have a high
probability to expose
archaeological resources.
After the initial Archaeological
Spot Check, further periodic
checks shall be conducted at
the discretion of the qualified
archaeologist. If the qualified
archaeologist determines that
construction excavations have
exposed or have a high
probability to expose
archaeological artifacts
construction monitoring for
Archaeological Resources
shall be required. The project
developer shall retain a
qualified archaeological
monitor, who will work under
the guidance and direction of a
professional archaeologist,
who meets the qualifications
set forth by the U.S. Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards.
The archaeological monitor
shall be present during all
construction excavations (e.g.,
grading, trenching, or
clearing/grubbing) into non-fill
younger Pleistocene alluvial
sediments. Multiple earth-
moving construction activities
may require multiple
archaeological monitors. The
frequency of monitoring shall
be based on the rate of
excavation and grading
activities, proximity to known
archaeological resources, the
materials being excavated
(native versus artificial fill
soils), and the depth of
excavation, and if found, the
activities
and
throughout
project
construction.
Department Initial
_______________
Date
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 9
abundance and type of
archaeological resources
encountered. Full-time
monitoring can be reduced to
part-time inspections if
determined adequate by the
project archaeologist.
7. The archaeological monitor,
under the direction of a
qualified professional
archaeologist who meets the
U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and
Standards, shall prepare a
final report at the conclusion of
archaeological monitoring.
The report shall be submitted
to the project developer, the
South Central Costal
Information Center, the City,
and representatives of other
appropriate or concerned
agencies to signify the
satisfactory completion of the
project and required mitigation
measures. The report shall
include a description of
resources unearthed, if any,
evaluation of the resources
with respect to the California
Register and CEQA, and
treatment of the resources.
On-going
throughout
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Noise
8. All construction equipment
shall be equipped with
mufflers and other suitable
noise attenuation devices
(e.g., engine shields).
On-going
during project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
9. Grading and construction
contractors shall use rubber-
tired equipment rather than
track equipment, to the
maximum extent feasible.
On-going
during project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
10. If feasible, electric hook-ups
shall be provided to avoid
the use of generators. If
electric service is
On-going
during project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 10
determined to be infeasible
for the site, only whisper-
quiet generators shall be
used (i.e., inverter
generators capable of
providing variable load.
_______________
Date
11. Electric air compressors and
similar power tools rather
than diesel equipment shall
be used, where feasible.
On-going
during project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
12. Generators and stationary
construction equipment shall
be staged and located as far
from the adjacent residential
structures as feasible.
On-going
during project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
13. Construction-related
equipment, including heavy-
duty equipment, motor
vehicles, and portable
equipment, shall be turned
off when not in use for more
than 5 minutes.
On-going
during project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
14. A sign shall be posted in a
readily visible location at the
project site that indicates the
dates and duration of
construction activities, as
well as provide a telephone
number where residents can
enquire about the
construction process and
register complaints to an
assigned construction noise
disturbance coordinator.
On-going
during project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
15. Dozers shall not operate
within 25 feet of the north
property line.
On-going
during project
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 11
Tribal Cultural Resources
16. Prior to the commencement
of any ground disturbing
activity at the project site, the
project applicant shall retain a
Native American Monitor
approved by the Gabrieleno
Band of Mission Indians-Kizh
Nation. A copy of the
executed contract shall be
submitted to the City of
Rosemead Planning and
Building Department prior to
the issuance of any permit
necessary to commence a
ground-disturbing activity.
The Tribal monitor shall only
be present on-site during the
construction phases that
involve ground-disturbing
activities. Ground disturbing
activities are defined by the
Tribe as activities that may
include, but are not limited to,
pavement removal, potholing
or auguring, grubbing, tree
removals, boring, grading,
excavation, drilling, and
trenching, within the project
area. The Tribal Monitor
shall complete daily
monitoring logs that shall
provide descriptions of the
day’s activities, including
construction activities,
locations, soil, and any
cultural materials identified.
The on-site monitoring shall
end when all ground-
disturbing activities on the
project site are completed, or
when the Tribal
Representatives and Tribal
Monitor have indicated that
all upcoming ground-
disturbing activities at the
project site have little to no
potential to impact Tribal
Cultural Resources.
Prior to the
start of any
ground
disturbing
activity.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 12
17. Upon discovery of any Tribal
Cultural Resources,
construction activities shall
cease in the immediate
vicinity of the find (not less
than the surrounding 100
feet) until the find can be
assessed. All Tribal Cultural
Resources unearthed by
project activities shall be
evaluated by the qualified
archaeologist and Tribal
monitor approved by the
Consulting Tribe. If the
resources are Native
American in origin, the
Consulting Tribe shall retain
it/them in the form and/or
manner the Tribe deems
appropriate, for educational,
cultural and/or historic
purposes. If human remains
and/or grave goods are
discovered or recognized at
the project site, all ground
disturbance shall immediately
cease, and the county
coroner shall be notified per
Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98, and Health
& Safety Code Section
7050.5. Human remains and
grave/burial goods shall be
treated alike per California
Public Resources Code
section 5097.98(d)(1) and
(2). Work may continue on
other parts of the project site
while evaluation and, if
necessary, mitigation takes
place (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5[f]). If a non-
Native American resource is
determined by the qualified
archaeologist to constitute a
“historical resource” or
“unique archaeological
resource,” time allotment and
funding sufficient to allow for
implementation of avoidance
On-going
during
construction.
City of
Rosemead
Building
Department
_____________
Initial
_______________
Date
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project February 22, 2022
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 13
measures, or appropriate
mitigation, must be available.
The treatment plan
established for the resources
shall be in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(f) for historical
resources and PRC Sections
21083.2(b) for unique
archaeological resources.
Preservation in place (i.e.,
avoidance) is the preferred
manner of treatment. If
preservation in place is not
feasible, treatment may
include implementation of
archaeological data recovery
excavations to remove the
resource along with
subsequent laboratory
processing and analysis.
Any historic archaeological
material that is not Native
American in origin shall be
curated at a public, non-profit
institution with a research
interest in the materials, such
as the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles
County or the Fowler
Museum, if such an institution
agrees to accept the material.
If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, it
shall be offered to a local
school or historical society in
the area for educational
purposes.
Attachment H
Written Public Comments Received during the
20 -Day Review Period and Response to Comments
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE PROJECT
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 21-01, ZONE CHANGE 21-01
Response to Comments
Lead Agency:
City of Rosemead
8800 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
(626) 569-2140
Project Proponent:
Del Mar Property, LLC
120 E. Valley Boulevard
San Gabriel, CA 91776
(626) 307-0062
Environmental Consultant:
Phil Martin & Associates
1809 E. Dyer Road, Suite 301
Santa Ana, California 92705
(949) 454-1800
March 15, 2022
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Page i
Mitigated Negative Declaration – Response to Comments – March 15, 2022
TABLE of CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND LIST OF COMMENTERS .................................................... 1.0-1
2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .................................................................................. 2.0-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Comment Letters
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND LIST OF COMMENTER S
Chapter 1 – Introduction and List of Commenters
1.0 - 1
1.0.1 INTRODUCTION
This Response to Comments document contains the public agency comments received during
the public review period of the Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) and the responses of the City of Rosemead, as the lead agency, to the environmental
points raised in the public agency comments.
1.0.2 BACKGROUND
Project Location
The Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project is located at 7539 and 7545 Garvey Avenue.
Project Description
The project site is vacant. The project proposes the construction of a seven-story, mixed-use
development with 6,346 square feet of nonresidential use on the first floor and 75 residential
units on the first through seventh floors. Of the 75 residential units, 30 are live-work units,
including 4 live-work units on the ground level, 5 live-work units on the second floor, 7 live-work
units on the third floor and 14 live-work units on the fourth floor. The project proposes 45
apartments on the fifth through seventh floors with 16 apartments on the fifth floor, 15
apartments on the sixth floor and 14 apartments on the seventh floor. The project includes 17
two-bedroom live-work units, 34 two-bedroom apartments, 4 two-bedroom loft live-work units, 9
three-bedroom live-work units, 10 three-bedroom apartments and 1 four-bedroom apartment.
The project proposes 12,547 square feet of landscaping, or 30 percent of the site. The project
also proposes 147 parking spaces, including 110 standard spaces, 32 compact spaces, four
handicap accessible spaces, and one loading space. There is one point of vehicular access
from Prospect Avenue. The Prospect Avenue entry provides an entrance to the ground level
parking area and access to ramps that provide vehicular access to parking on the second and
third floor parking areas. The height of the building to the top of the roof is 75’. The total height
of the building, including the top of the parapet, is 80’-0”.
The project also includes an amendment to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan permitting sit-
down restaurants with a minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an Administrative
Use Permit for beer/wine sales in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) and Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed -Use (GSP-MU) zones. This proposed Amendment would
continue to require a Conditional Use Permit for all other on-site alcohol sales for sit-down
restaurants less than 6,000 square feet.
1.0.3 PUBLIC CIRCULATION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 20-day public review period pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines §15105(b) from February 16, 2022 to March 7, 2022. The Notice of Intent to
Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk Recorder.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration is an informational document, intended to disclose the
environmental consequences of approving the proposed Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project. All
written comments received during the 20-day public review period are addressed in this
Response to Comments document.
Chapter 1 – Introduction and List of Commenters
1.0 - 2
1.0.4 RESPONSES
Responses to comments received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration during the public
review period are presented in Chapter 2, Comments and Responses. The City received two
comment letters. The comment letters are numbered at the top and bracketed to indicate how
the letter has been divided into individual comments. Each comment is designated a number
with the letter number appearing first, followed by the comment number. For example, Letter 1
has the following format: 1-1. The bracketed letter precedes responses to the letter’s comments
in Chapter 2 of this Response to Comments.
The comments received to the Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City of Rosemead have
been reviewed carefully based on the environmental issues raised. The information provided in
the responses to comments provides clarifications and additional information necessary for the
decision makers and the public to understand the environmental consequences of the proposed
project and for the decision makers to act on the project. All responses to comments contain a
good faith reasoned effort at full disclosure regarding the disposition of these significant
environmental issues.
1.0.5 LIST OF COMMENTERS
The following letters were received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration with an identifying
letter number, the agency that submitted the letter, and the date of letter. A copy of the letters
are attached in Appendix A.
1. Letter 1 – Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, Mandy Huffman, February 24, 2022.
2. Letter 2 – Mitchell M. Tsai, March 2, 2022.
2.0 RES PONSE TO COMMENTS
DOC 6469497.D15
February 24, 2022
Ref.DOC 6467246
Lily Valenzuela, Planning & Economic Development ManagerCity of Rosemead Planning Division
8838 Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
Dear Ms. Valenzuela:
NOI Response to Prospect Villa
The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) received a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the subject project on February 22, 2022.The proposed project is
located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 15. Previous comments submitted by the Districts to Phil Martin & Associates in correspondence dated October 19, 2021 (copy enclosed)still apply to the subject project
with the following updated information:
•XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, response to question a, page 95: The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to local sewer lines, which are not maintained by the
Districts, for conveyance to the Districts’ Joint Outfall B Unit 1H Trunk Sewer, located in the public right-of-way adjacent to Alhambra Wash, east of San Gabriel Boulevard.The Districts’ 27-inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 6.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 1.8 mgd when last
measured in 2018.
All other information concerning Districts’ facilities and sewerage service contained in the MND is current.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562)908-4288, extension 2743,or
mandyhuffman@lacsd.org.
Very truly yours,
Mandy Huffman
Environmental PlannerFacilities Planning Department
MNH:mnh
Enclosure
cc:A. SchmidtA.Howard
LETTER 1
1-1
Chapter 2 – Response to Comments
2.0 - 1
Letter 1: Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, Mandy Huffman, February 24, 2022.
Comment 1-1:
The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) for the subject project on February 22, 2022. The
proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundary of District No. 15. Previous
comments submitted by the Districts to Phil Martin & Associates in correspondence dated
October 19, 2021 still apply to the subject project with the following updated information:
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, response to question a, page 95: The
wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to local sewer lines,
which are not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts’ Joint Outfall B Unit
1H Trunk Sewer, located in the public right of-way adjacent to Alhambra Wash, east of San
Gabriel Boulevard. The Districts’ 27-inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 6.1 million
gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 1.8 mgd when last measured in 2018.
Response:
The updated wastewater information does not identify any potential wastewater impacts with the
project. The updated wastewater information also does not change the conclusion of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration that the project would not have any significant wastewater
impacts.
Ph: (626) 381-9248 Fx: (626) 389-5414
Em: info@mitchtsailaw.com
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
March 4, 2022
Lily Valenzuela
Planning & Economic Development Manager
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
Em: ltrinh@cityofrosemead.org
RE: Public Records Act and Mailing List Request Regarding The
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project.
Dear Lily Valenzuela,
On behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“SWRCC” or “Southwest
Carpenters”) and its members, this Office requests that the City of Rosemead
(“City”) provide any and all information referring or related to the Prospect Villa
Mixed-Use Project (“Project”) pursuant to the California Public Records Act
(“PRA”), Cal. Government (“Gov’t”) Code §§ 6250–6270 (collectively “PRA
Request”).
Moreover, SWRCC requests that City provide notice for any and all notices referring
or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California
Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§
65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and
Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person
who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
The Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters is a labor union representing more
than 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including California, and has a strong
interest in well-ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of
development projects, such as the Project.
I. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST.
LETTER 2
2-1
2-1
City of Rosemead– The Prospect Villa Mixed-Used Project March 4, 2022
Page 2 of 7
Southwest Carpenters is requesting any and all information referring or related to the
Project.
The Public Records Act defines the term “public record” broadly as “any writing
containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business . . . regardless
of physical form and characteristics.” Gov’t Code § 6252(d). “Records” includes all
communications relating to public business regardless of physical form or
characteristics, including but not limited to any writing, picture, sound, or symbol,
whether paper, magnetic, electronic, text, other media, or written verification of any
oral communication. Included in this request are any references in any appointment
calendars and applications, phone records, or text records. These “records” are to
include, but are not limited to correspondences, e-mails, reports, letters,
memorandums, and communications by any employee or elected official of City
concerning the Project.
Please include in your response to this request the following examples of “records,” as
well as any similar physical or electronic forms of communication: any form of writing
such as correspondence, electronic mail records (“email”), legal and factual
memoranda, facsimiles, photographs, maps, videotapes, film, data, reports, notes,
audiotapes, or drawings. Cal. Government Code § 6252(g) (defining a writing to
including “any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record
has been stored”). Responsive correspondence should include, inter alia, emails, text
messages, or any other form of communication regardless of whether they were sent
or received on public or privately-owned electronic devices “relating to the conduct of
the public’s business.” Cal. Government Code § 6252(e); Citizens for Ceres v. Super. Ct.
(“Ceres”) (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 889, 909; Citizens for Open Gov’t v. City of Lodi
(“Lodi”) (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 307, 311; City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2
Cal. 5th 608, 625 (finding that a public employee or officer’s “writings about public
business are not excluded” from the California Public Records Act “simply because
they have been sent, received, or stored in a personal account.”) .
This Office requests any and all information referring or related to the Project,
including but not limited to:
(1) All Project application materials;
(2) All staff reports and related documents prepared by the City with
respect to its compliance with the substantive and procedural
2-1
cont’d
City of Rosemead– The Prospect Villa Mixed-Used Project March 4, 2022
Page 3 of 7
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, title 14,
California Code of Regulations, § 15000 et seq. (collectively
“CEQA”) and with respect to the action on the Project;
(3) All staff reports and related documents prepared by the City and
written testimony or documents submitted by any person relevant
to any findings or statement of overriding considerations adopted
by the agency pursuant to CEQA;
(4) Any transcript or minutes of the proceedings at which the
decisionmaking body of the City heard testimony on, or considered
any environmental document on, the Project, and any transcript or
minutes of proceedings before any advisory body to the public
agency that were presented to the decisionmaking body prior to
action on the environmental documents or on the Project;
(5) All notices issued by the City to comply with CEQA or with any
other law governing the processing and approval of the Project;
(6) All written comments received in response to, or in connection
with, environmental documents prepared for the Project, including
responses to the notice of preparation;
(7) All written evidence or correspondence submitted to, or
transferred from, the City with respect to compliance with CEQA
or with respect to the Project;
(8) Any proposed decisions or findings submitted to the
decisionmaking body of the City by its staff, or the Project
proponent, Project opponents, or other persons;
(9) The documentation of the final City decision and approvals,
including the final environmental impact report, mitigated negative
declaration, negative declaration, or notice of exemption, and all
documents, in addition to those referenced in paragraph (3), cited
or relied on in the findings or in a statement of overriding
considerations adopted pursuant to CEQA;
(10) Any other written materials relevant to the public agency's
2-1
cont’d
City of Rosemead– The Prospect Villa Mixed-Used Project March 4, 2022
Page 4 of 7
compliance with CEQA or to its decision on the merits of the
Project, including the initial study, any drafts of any environmental
document, or portions thereof, that have been released for public
review, and copies of studies or other documents relied upon in any
environmental document prepared for the Project and either made
available to the public during the public review period or included
in the City 's files on the Project, and all internal agency
communications, including staff notes and memoranda related to
the Project or to compliance with CEQA; and
(11) The full written record before any inferior administrative
decisionmaking body whose decision was appealed to a superior
administrative decisionmaking body prior to the filing of any
litigation.
Please respond within 10 days from the date you receive this request as to whether
this request specifies identifiable records not exempt from disclosure under the PRA
or otherwise privileged or confidential, and are therefore subject to disclosure. This
Office understands that this time may be extended up to 14 days for unusual
circumstances as provided by Cal. Government Code § 6253(c), and that we will be
notified of any extension and the reasons justifying it.
We request that you provide all documents in electronic format and waive any and all
fees associated with this Request. SWRCC is a community-based organization. Please
notify and obtain express approval from this Office before incurring any duplication
costs.
If any of the above requested documents are available online, please provide us with
the URL web address at which the documents may be downloaded. If any of the
requested documents are retained by the City in electronic computer-readable format
such as PDF (portable document format), please provide us with pdf copies of the
documents via email, or inform us of the location at which we can copy these
documents electronically.
In preparing your response, please bear in mind that you have an obligation under
Government Code section 6253.1 to (1) identify all records and information
responsive to our request or the purpose of our request; (2) describe the information
technology and physical location in which the records exist; and (3) provide
2-1
cont’d
City of Rosemead– The Prospect Villa Mixed-Used Project March 4, 2022
Page 5 of 7
suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or
information sought.
In responding to this request, please bear in mind that any exemptions from disclosure
you may believe to be applicable are to be narrowly construed. Marken v. Santa Monica-
Malibu Unif. Sch. Dist. (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1250,1262; and may be further
narrowed or eliminated by the adoption of Proposition 59, which amended article I,
section 3(b)(2) of the California Constitution to direct that any “statute ... or other
authority ... [that] limits the right of access” to “information concerning the conduct of
the people’s business” must be “narrowly construed.”
As for any records that you nonetheless decline to produce on the grounds of an
exemption, please bear in mind that the case law under the Public Records Act
imposes a duty on you to distinguish between the exempt and the non-exempt portion
of any such records, and to attempt in good faith to redact the exempt portion and to
disclose the balance of such documents.
Please bear in mind further that should you choose to withhold any document from
disclosure, you have a duty under Government Code section 6255, subd. (a) to “justify
withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under
express provisions” of the Public Records Act or that “the public interest served by
not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of
the record.”
Finally, please note that you must retain and not destroy any and all records,
notwithstanding any local record retention or document destruction policies. As the
Court noted in Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2020) 53
Cal.App.5th 733 that a public agency “must retain ‘[a]ll written evidence or
correspondence submitted to, or transferred from’ . . . with respect to” CEQA
compliance or “with respect to the project.”
II. NOTICE LIST REQUEST.
We also ask that you put this Office on its notice list for any and all notices issued
under the CEQA and the Planning and Zoning Law.
In particular, we request that City send by mail or electronic mail notice of any and all
actions or hearings related to activities undertaken, authorized, approved, permitted,
licensed, or certified by the City and any of its subdivision for the Project, or
supported, in whole or in part, through permits, contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or
2-1
cont’d
City of Rosemead– The Prospect Villa Mixed-Used Project March 4, 2022
Page 6 of 7
other forms of approvals, actions or assistance, including but not limited to the
following:
• Notices of any public hearing held in connection with the Project;
as well as
• Any and all notices prepared pursuant to CEQA, including but not
limited to:
• Notices of determination that an Environmental Impact Report
(“EIR”) or supplemental EIR is required for a project, prepared
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4;
• Notices of availability of an EIR or a negative declaration for a
project prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152
and Section 15087 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations;
• Notices of approval or determination to carry out a project,
prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any
other provision of law;
• Notice of approval or certification of any EIR or negative
declaration prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21152 or any other provision of law;
• Notice of exemption from CEQA prepared pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21152 or any other provision of law; and
• Notice of any Final EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA.
This Office is requesting notices of any approvals or public hearings under CEQA and
the California Planning and Zoning Law. This request is filed pursuant to California
Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section
65092 requiring agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written
request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
Please send notice by regular and electronic mail to:
Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
2-1
cont’d
City of Rosemead– The Prospect Villa Mixed-Used Project March 4, 2022
Page 7 of 7
Pasadena, California 91101
Em: mitch@mitchtsailaw.com
Em: brandon@mitchtsailaw.com
Em: hind@mitchtsailaw.com
Em: info@mitchtsailaw.com
Em: rebekah@mitchtsailaw.com
Em: maria@mitchtsailaw.com
We look forward to working with you. If you have any questions or concerns, please
do not hesitate to contact our Office.
Sincerely,
_________________________________
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council
of Carpenters
Chapter 2 – Response to Comments
2.0 - 2
Letter 2: Mitchell M. Tsai, March 2, 2022.
Comment 2-1:
On behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“SWRCC” or “Southwest Carpenters”)
and its members, this Office requests that the City of Rosemead (“City”) provide any and all
information referring or related to the Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project (“Project”) pursuant to
the California Public Records Act (“PRA”), Cal. Government (“Gov’t”) Code §§ 6250–6270
(collectively “PRA Request”).
Moreover, SWRCC requests that City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related
to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public
Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law
(“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources
Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to
mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the
agency’s governing body. The Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters is a labor union
representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including California, and has a
strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of
development projects, such as the Project.
I. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST.
Southwest Carpenters is requesting any and all information referring or related to the Project.
II. NOTICE LIST REQUEST.
We also ask that you put this Office on its notice list for any and all notices issued under the
CEQA and the Planning and Zoning Law.
Response:
As requested, the Rosemead City Clerk will gather and provide the Southwest Carpenters all
information referred or related to the proposed Prospect Villa project and provide all notices
referring or related to the Prospect Villa project issued under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California
Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010.
Furthermore, in compliance with California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and
21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 the Rosemead City Clerk will mail all project
related notices to Southwest Carpenters.
Appendix A
Comment Letters
DOC 6469497.D15
February 24, 2022
Ref. DOC 6467246
Lily Valenzuela, Planning & Economic Development Manager City of Rosemead Planning Division 8838 Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770
Dear Ms. Valenzuela:
NOI Response to Prospect Villa
The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) received a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the subject project on February 22, 2022. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 15. Previous comments submitted by the Districts to Phil Martin & Associates in correspondence dated October 19, 2021 (copy enclosed) still apply to the subject project
with the following updated information:
• XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, response to question a, page 95: The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to local sewer lines, which are not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts’ Joint Outfall B Unit 1H Trunk Sewer, located in the public right-of-way adjacent to Alhambra Wash, east of San Gabriel Boulevard. The Districts’ 27-inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 6.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 1.8 mgd when last measured in 2018.
All other information concerning Districts’ facilities and sewerage service contained in the MND is current.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2743, or mandyhuffman@lacsd.org.
Very truly yours,
Mandy Huffman Environmental Planner Facilities Planning Department
MNH:mnh Enclosure cc: A. Schmidt A. Howard
DOC 6327274.D15
October 19, 2021
Ref. DOC 6326076
Mr. Phil Martin
Phil Martin & Associates
1809 East Dyer Road, Suite 301
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Dear Mr. Martin:
Will Serve Letter for Prospect Villa
The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) received your will serve letter request for the
subject project on September 29, 2021. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundary of District
No. 15. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service:
1. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is
not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts’ Joint Outfall B Unit 1H Trunk Sewer,
located in a public right-of-way east of San Gabriel Boulevard. The Districts’ 27-inch diameter trunk sewer
has a capacity of 6.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 1.8 mgd when last
measured in 2018.
2. The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the Whittier Narrows Water
Reclamation Plant (WRP) located near the City of South El Monte, which has a capacity of 15 mgd and
currently processes an average flow of 9.9 mgd, or at the Los Coyotes WRP located in the City of Cerritos,
which has a capacity of 37.5 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 21.3 mgd.
3. The expected average wastewater flow from the project site, described in the application as 75 residential
apartments and 6,346 square feet of retail space, is 13,762 gallons per day. For a copy of the Districts’
average wastewater generation factors, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater Program and
Permits, select Will Serve Program, and scroll down to click on the Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of
Land Use link.
4. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities
(directly or indirectly) to the Districts’ Sewerage System or to increase the strength or quantity of wastewater
discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is a capital facilities fee that is used by the Districts
to upgrade or expand the Sewerage System. Payment of a connection fee may be required before this project
is permitted to discharge to the Districts’ Sewerage System. For more information and a copy of the
Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater (Sewage) and
select Rates & Fees. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the
Districts will determine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Single Family home, etc.) that best represents
the actual or anticipated use of the parcel(s) or facilities on the parcel(s) in the development. For more
specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, the developer should
contact the Districts’ Wastewater Fee Public Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 2727.
Mr. Phil Martin 2 October 19, 2021
DOC 6327274.D15
5. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities
of the Districts’ wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of
the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South
Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South
Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CAA. All expansions of Districts’ facilities must
be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for
the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available
capacity of the Districts’ treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved
growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but
is to advise the developer that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally
permitted and to inform the developer of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the
Districts’ facilities.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2708 or at
dcurry@lacsd.org.
Very truly yours,
Donna J. Curry
Customer Service Specialist
Facilities Planning Department
DC:dc
cc: A. Schmidt
A. Howard
Ph: (626) 381-9248
Fx: (626) 389-5414
Em: info@mitchtsailaw.com
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
March 4, 2022
Lily Valenzuela
Planning & Economic Development Manager
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
Em: ltrinh@cityofrosemead.org
RE: Public Records Act and Mailing List Request Regarding The
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project.
Dear Lily Valenzuela,
On behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“SWRCC” or “Southwest
Carpenters”) and its members, this Office requests that the City of Rosemead
(“City”) provide any and all information referring or related to the Prospect Villa
Mixed-Use Project (“Project”) pursuant to the California Public Records Act
(“PRA”), Cal. Government (“Gov’t”) Code §§ 6250–6270 (collectively “PRA
Request”).
Moreover, SWRCC requests that City provide notice for any and all notices referring
or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California
Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§
65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and
Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person
who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
The Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters is a labor union representing more
than 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including California, and has a strong
interest in well-ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of
development projects, such as the Project.
I. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST.
City of Rosemead– The Prospect Villa Mixed-Used Project
March 4, 2022
Page 2 of 7
Southwest Carpenters is requesting any and all information referring or related to the
Project.
The Public Records Act defines the term “public record” broadly as “any writing
containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business . . . regardless
of physical form and characteristics.” Gov’t Code § 6252(d). “Records” includes all
communications relating to public business regardless of physical form or
characteristics, including but not limited to any writing, picture, sound, or symbol,
whether paper, magnetic, electronic, text, other media, or written verification of any
oral communication. Included in this request are any references in any appointment
calendars and applications, phone records, or text records. These “records” are to
include, but are not limited to correspondences, e-mails, reports, letters,
memorandums, and communications by any employee or elected official of City
concerning the Project.
Please include in your response to this request the following examples of “records,” as
well as any similar physical or electronic forms of communication: any form of writing
such as correspondence, electronic mail records (“email”), legal and factual
memoranda, facsimiles, photographs, maps, videotapes, film, data, reports, notes,
audiotapes, or drawings. Cal. Government Code § 6252(g) (defining a writing to
including “any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record
has been stored”). Responsive correspondence should include, inter alia, emails, text
messages, or any other form of communication regardless of whether they were sent
or received on public or privately-owned electronic devices “relating to the conduct of
the public’s business.” Cal. Government Code § 6252(e); Citizens for Ceres v. Super. Ct.
(“Ceres”) (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 889, 909; Citizens for Open Gov’t v. City of Lodi
(“Lodi”) (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 307, 311; City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2
Cal. 5th 608, 625 (finding that a public employee or officer’s “writings about public
business are not excluded” from the California Public Records Act “simply because
they have been sent, received, or stored in a personal account.”) .
This Office requests any and all information referring or related to the Project,
including but not limited to:
(1) All Project application materials;
(2) All staff reports and related documents prepared by the City with
respect to its compliance with the substantive and procedural
City of Rosemead– The Prospect Villa Mixed-Used Project
March 4, 2022
Page 3 of 7
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, title 14,
California Code of Regulations, § 15000 et seq. (collectively
“CEQA”) and with respect to the action on the Project;
(3) All staff reports and related documents prepared by the City and
written testimony or documents submitted by any person relevant
to any findings or statement of overriding considerations adopted
by the agency pursuant to CEQA;
(4) Any transcript or minutes of the proceedings at which the
decisionmaking body of the City heard testimony on, or considered
any environmental document on, the Project, and any transcript or
minutes of proceedings before any advisory body to the public
agency that were presented to the decisionmaking body prior to
action on the environmental documents or on the Project;
(5) All notices issued by the City to comply with CEQA or with any
other law governing the processing and approval of the Project;
(6) All written comments received in response to, or in connection
with, environmental documents prepared for the Project, including
responses to the notice of preparation;
(7) All written evidence or correspondence submitted to, or
transferred from, the City with respect to compliance with CEQA
or with respect to the Project;
(8) Any proposed decisions or findings submitted to the
decisionmaking body of the City by its staff, or the Project
proponent, Project opponents, or other persons;
(9) The documentation of the final City decision and approvals,
including the final environmental impact report, mitigated negative
declaration, negative declaration, or notice of exemption, and all
documents, in addition to those referenced in paragraph (3), cited
or relied on in the findings or in a statement of overriding
considerations adopted pursuant to CEQA;
(10) Any other written materials relevant to the public agency's
City of Rosemead– The Prospect Villa Mixed-Used Project
March 4, 2022
Page 4 of 7
compliance with CEQA or to its decision on the merits of the
Project, including the initial study, any drafts of any environmental
document, or portions thereof, that have been released for public
review, and copies of studies or other documents relied upon in any
environmental document prepared for the Project and either made
available to the public during the public review period or included
in the City 's files on the Project, and all internal agency
communications, including staff notes and memoranda related to
the Project or to compliance with CEQA; and
(11) The full written record before any inferior administrative
decisionmaking body whose decision was appealed to a superior
administrative decisionmaking body prior to the filing of any
litigation.
Please respond within 10 days from the date you receive this request as to whether
this request specifies identifiable records not exempt from disclosure under the PRA
or otherwise privileged or confidential, and are therefore subject to disclosure. This
Office understands that this time may be extended up to 14 days for unusual
circumstances as provided by Cal. Government Code § 6253(c), and that we will be
notified of any extension and the reasons justifying it.
We request that you provide all documents in electronic format and waive any and all
fees associated with this Request. SWRCC is a community-based organization. Please
notify and obtain express approval from this Office before incurring any duplication
costs.
If any of the above requested documents are available online, please provide us with
the URL web address at which the documents may be downloaded. If any of the
requested documents are retained by the City in electronic computer-readable format
such as PDF (portable document format), please provide us with pdf copies of the
documents via email, or inform us of the location at which we can copy these
documents electronically.
In preparing your response, please bear in mind that you have an obligation under
Government Code section 6253.1 to (1) identify all records and information
responsive to our request or the purpose of our request; (2) describe the information
technology and physical location in which the records exist; and (3) provide
City of Rosemead– The Prospect Villa Mixed-Used Project
March 4, 2022
Page 5 of 7
suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or
information sought.
In responding to this request, please bear in mind that any exemptions from disclosure
you may believe to be applicable are to be narrowly construed. Marken v. Santa Monica-
Malibu Unif. Sch. Dist. (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1250,1262; and may be further
narrowed or eliminated by the adoption of Proposition 59, which amended article I,
section 3(b)(2) of the California Constitution to direct that any “statute ... or other
authority ... [that] limits the right of access” to “information concerning the conduct of
the people’s business” must be “narrowly construed.”
As for any records that you nonetheless decline to produce on the grounds of an
exemption, please bear in mind that the case law under the Public Records Act
imposes a duty on you to distinguish between the exempt and the non-exempt portion
of any such records, and to attempt in good faith to redact the exempt portion and to
disclose the balance of such documents.
Please bear in mind further that should you choose to withhold any document from
disclosure, you have a duty under Government Code section 6255, subd. (a) to “justify
withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under
express provisions” of the Public Records Act or that “the public interest served by
not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of
the record.”
Finally, please note that you must retain and not destroy any and all records,
notwithstanding any local record retention or document destruction policies. As the
Court noted in Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2020) 53
Cal.App.5th 733 that a public agency “must retain ‘[a]ll written evidence or
correspondence submitted to, or transferred from’ . . . with respect to” CEQA
compliance or “with respect to the project.”
II. NOTICE LIST REQUEST.
We also ask that you put this Office on its notice list for any and all notices issued
under the CEQA and the Planning and Zoning Law.
In particular, we request that City send by mail or electronic mail notice of any and all
actions or hearings related to activities undertaken, authorized, approved, permitted,
licensed, or certified by the City and any of its subdivision for the Project, or
supported, in whole or in part, through permits, contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or
City of Rosemead– The Prospect Villa Mixed-Used Project
March 4, 2022
Page 6 of 7
other forms of approvals, actions or assistance, including but not limited to the
following:
• Notices of any public hearing held in connection with the Project;
as well as
• Any and all notices prepared pursuant to CEQA, including but not
limited to:
• Notices of determination that an Environmental Impact Report
(“EIR”) or supplemental EIR is required for a project, prepared
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4;
• Notices of availability of an EIR or a negative declaration for a
project prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152
and Section 15087 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations;
• Notices of approval or determination to carry out a project,
prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any
other provision of law;
• Notice of approval or certification of any EIR or negative
declaration prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21152 or any other provision of law;
• Notice of exemption from CEQA prepared pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21152 or any other provision of law; and
• Notice of any Final EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA.
This Office is requesting notices of any approvals or public hearings under CEQA and
the California Planning and Zoning Law. This request is filed pursuant to California
Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section
65092 requiring agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written
request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
Please send notice by regular and electronic mail to:
Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
City of Rosemead– The Prospect Villa Mixed-Used Project
March 4, 2022
Page 7 of 7
Pasadena, California 91101
Em: mitch@mitchtsailaw.com
Em: brandon@mitchtsailaw.com
Em: hind@mitchtsailaw.com
Em: info@mitchtsailaw.com
Em: rebekah@mitchtsailaw.com
Em: maria@mitchtsailaw.com
We look forward to working with you. If you have any questions or concerns, please
do not hesitate to contact our Office.
Sincerely,
_________________________________
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council
of Carpenters
Attachment I
Public Comment from Law Offices of Mitchell M. Tsai,
dated March 22, 2022
City of Rosemead
Public Comment
To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
From: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
Date: March 22, 2022
Re: Agenda Item 4A – Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change
21-01
The following comment letter was received via email from attorney Mitchell M. Tsai, on
behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters expressing opposition to the
project. The 277-page comment letter was provided to the City Council and is available
for public review at tonight’s meeting, at the City Clerk’s office, and will be recorded for
the official record.
Thank you.
Attachment J
Public Comment from Nancy Eng,
dated March 22, 2022
City of Rosemead
Public Comment
To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
From: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
Date: March 22, 2022
Re: Agenda Item 4A – Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01
The following public comment was received via email from Nancy Eng.
Good Evening City Council Members.
My regret for not being able to appear in person to deliver my comments this evening.
Rosemead has been my family home for over 20 years. Our home on Jackson Ave is within two
walking blocks south east of the project site. My home is outside of the 300’ radius notice area
and I just learned about the project last week, I have not had ample opportunity to study the
project details and the mitigated negative declaration.
My ask to the City and the developer is to please take care to mitigate traffic, congestion, and
circulation to the neighboring streets. My street, Jackson Ave., is a residential street, is one
block east of the project site, and is heavily used by commuters, police, fire department, and
commercial delivery trucks. My neighbor (renter) parks his car on the street and his car has been
hit twice by hit and run drivers in the last three years. We also had a family car (a nice Cadillac)
hit by a hit and run driver and totaled. We no longer park our car on the street.
There are two elementary schools and a middle school within walking distance from the project
site. When school is in full session, parking and circulation is a huge car and human zoo. Was
this taken in account in the mitigation measures?
There are two other development projects by this project site that are underway: the mixed used
project at 7419-7459 Garvey Ave. east of this project, with 20,000 square feet of commercial
space, 218 residential units and a planned development project with 63 residential units at the
corner of New Ave. and Whitmore, which is 1 block southwest of this project site. Were these
developments taken into consideration in the mitigation measures?
It appears there are three levels of above grade parking structure attached to the project. Since
the residences south of the project are single level homes, will the parking structure have a
ventilation system to reduce car emissions and fumes to the homes on Prospect Ave?
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Nancy Eng
Attachment K
Public Comment from Daisy Lin,
dated March 22, 2022
City of Rosemead
Public Comment
To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
From: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
Date: March 22, 2022
Re: Agenda Item 4A – Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone
Change 21-01
The following public comment was received via email from Daisy Lin.
I strongly oppose the Prospect Villa development.
This seven-storey building does not match the surrounding environment, and there is
none of the seven-storey building in the whole Garvey Ave.
This will directly affect my living environment, security issues, traffic congestion.
--
Sincerely,
Daisy Lin
Attachment L
Response to the Law Offices of Mitchell M. Tsai's
Public Comment Letter by Phil Martin & Associates,
dated April 6, 2022
1
RESPONSE TO LATE COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY
SOUTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS
LETTER DATED MARCH 22, 2022
This response to comments document responds to the late comments received by the City of
Rosemead to the Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project in a letter dated March 22, 2022 by Mitchell
Tsai on behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (Southwest Carpenters or
SWRCC). Appendix A includes a copy of Mitchell Tsai’s March 22, 2022 letter.
The City has considered the environmental issues raised in this comment letter and responds to
the comments below.
2
Comment 1-1
SWRCC requests that the Lead Agency provide it with any and all notices referring or related to
the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public
Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law
(“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010.
Response:
The City acknowledges the Commenter’s request to receive all notices for the Prospect Villa
Mixed-Use Project. As requested, the City will add Mitchell Tsai to its list to receive any and all
project related CEQA notices.
Comment 2-1
The commenter argues that the City should require the Applicant to provide additional
community benefits such as requiring the project to hire and use local skilled and trained
construction workers to build the Project.
Response:
As presented in Table 1 on page 30 and discussed on pages 69-72, including Table 2 on pages
70-71 of the MND, the project already commits to provide five different community benefits
specifically acknowledged in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. The five community benefits to
be provided by the project include: consolidating two existing lots into one lot; proposing 20
three and four bedroom units (27% of the proposed 75 residential units); providing ground floor
commercial space that averages 2,000 square feet per unit; providing three additional public
designated parking spaces beyond the number of parking spaces required by the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan; and design and construction of the project to meet CALGreen Tier 1
standards. Since the public review of the MND the project applicant has proposed to add
alternative energy (solar panels) as an additional community benefit for the project, which is an
additional 30 points for a total of 161 points for the six community benefits. The design and
construction of the project to meet CALGreen Tier 1 building standards exceeds the mandatory
requirements of the 2019 California Building Code. CALGreen Tier 1 design and development
standards include numerous green building standards designed to help meet the goals of the
California’s landmark initiative AB 32, which established a comprehensive program of cost-
effective reductions of greenhouse gases (GHG) to 1990 levels by 2020, which exceed the 2019
California Building Code standards.
Of note, the local hire and skilled/trained workforce benefits suggested by the commenter are
not acknowledged as community benefits under the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. Section
3.4.3 of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan states that Community Benefit Incentives can be
obtained in two ways – Affordable Housing and Senior Housing or the Garvey Avenue
Community Benefit Program. The project does not propose any affordable or senior housing.
Referencing the Community Benefits listed in Section 3.4.3.2 of the Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan there are no community benefits or points available to a developer for the use of local hire
skilled/trained construction workers as requested in the comment.
In summary, the project’s six community benefits translate into 161 points which permits the
project to develop at a higher floor area ratio and density pursuant to the community benefits
and incentives provisions of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. After application of those points
3
and the associated incentives, the project complies with all applicable development standards
such that no additional community benefits are needed.
Comment 3-1
The commenter further asserts that the City should consider utilizing skilled and trained
workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate
greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts.
Response:
While the comment is unclear it appears to imply that a local hire and skilled/trained workforce
requirement may be needed here to reduce the project’s air quality, Greenhouse gas and
transportation impacts. However, the MND’s analysis and ultimate conclusions demonstrate that
the project will not result in any significant air quality or greenhouse gas impacts because the
project does not exceed any SCAQMD air emission thresholds as analyzed on pages 44
through 52, including Tables 7, 8 and 9 of the MND. Similarly, the MND demonstrates on pages
91 through 92 that the project would not have any significant VMT impacts and as such no
VMT-focused mitigation is proposed or needed. The commenter neither expressly argues
otherwise nor provides any substantial evidence that the project’s air quality, greenhouse gas
and/or transportation impacts will be significant and in need of additional mitigation.
Although the project will not create emissions that exceed any SCAQMD thresholds and thus no
significant project air quality impacts would occur, the MND conservatively recommends two air
quality mitigation measures to help further reduce air emissions as much as feasible since the
project is in a non-attainment area for ozone and PM10 particulate matter. Mitigation Measure
No. 2 on page 50 of the MND requires the project grading contractor to implement all applicable
measures required by Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust during construction. Similarly, while the
project’s ROG and NOx emissions do not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance,
Mitigation Measure No. 3 on page 51 of the MND is recommended to control diesel exhaust
emissions to further control ROG and NOx emissions as much as feasible. Since the MND does
not identify any significant particulate, ROG or NOx impacts, no further air quality mitigation
measures are required by CEQA. The two mitigation measures are recommended towards
reducing emissions as much as feasible.
Similarly, the Prospect Villa Mixed-Use MND demonstrates that the project will not result in any
significant adverse greenhouse gas or transportation impacts. Therefore, the MND is not
required by CEQA to provide mitigation measures unless there are potentially significant
impacts and based on the substantial evidence the MND does not recommend any greenhouse
gas or transportation mitigation measures since no potentially significant impacts have been
identified.
In summary, the MND demonstrates that the project will not result in any significant adverse air
quality, greenhouse gas or transportation impacts and as such no further mitigation measures
are necessary or required, and the commenter does not argue or provide substantial evidence
otherwise.
4
Comment 4-1
The commenter asserts the City should also require the Project to be built to standards
exceeding the current 2019 California Green Building Code to mitigate the Project’s
environmental impacts and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental
goals.
Response:
The comment does not specify what alleged environmental impacts it is referring to but as noted
above the Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project MND demonstrates that the project, as mitigated,
will not result in any significant adverse impacts and as such no further mitigation measures are
necessary or required and the commenter does not argue or provide any substantial evidence
otherwise. The design and construction of the project to meet CALGreen Tier 1 building
standards exceeds the mandatory requirements of the 2019 California Building Code.
In summary, the project is already committed to sustainable design and construction and no
additional mitigation measures are needed to reduce the project’s potential impacts to less than
significant levels.
Comment 5-1
The Commenter states that CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform
decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project.
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible
by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines §15002(a)(2) and (3).
Response:
This comment simply raises background CEQA principles and does not make any specific
comments about or allege any deficiencies in the MND. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines
§15002(a)(1).8 and §15002(a)(2) and (3), the Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project MND provides
both the public and the City of Rosemead decision makers with adequate information that
accurately and completely describes the proposed project and identifies the project’s potential
environmental effects. In addition, for those environmental issues that are identified as having
potentially significant effects, feasible mitigation measures are identified and demonstrated to
mitigate the impacts to a level of insignificance. Furthermore, in full compliance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15070 and California Public Resource Code Sections 21064.5, 21080(c) and
21082.1, the Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project MND is the appropriate CEQA document to fully
evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project and recommends mitigation
measures as required to reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant as noted by
the comment.
6-1 Comment:
The commenter asserts that due to the current public health crisis associated with COVID-19,
the City must adopt a mandatory finding of significance that the proposed project's construction
activities may cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings and that additional safety
measures are required to mitigate potential community spread of COVID-19.
5
Response:
California Public Resources Code Section 21083(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section
15065(a)(4) provide a project may have a significant effect on the environment if the
environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly. COVID-19, however, is not an environmental effect that will be caused by
the project, but rather, it is an existing virus that is already present in the population and thus
wholly unrelated to the development of the proposed project beyond being a part of the project’s
existing/baseline conditions. As a general rule, CEQA does not require an analysis of the
impact of the existing environment on a proposed project unless the project will worsen existing
environmental hazards or conditions. (California Bldg. Indus. Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality
Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377.) Development of the proposed project will not cause or
worsen existing COVID-19 conditions in the population.
The City is already subject to Statewide and County public health orders and follows Los
Angeles County protocols for construction sites. See, California Department of Industrial
Relations Division of Occupational Safety & Health Publications Unit
(https://dir.ca.gov/dosh/coronavirus/COVID-19-Infection-Prevention-in-Construction.pdf) and
Los Angeles County Public Works Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19
Pandemic (https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-safety/docs/pw_guidelines-construction-
sites.pdf). Because the City and the project developer are already mandated by law to comply
with COVID-19 safety measures the implementation and compliance with all applicable public
health measures by the project developer will provide safe on-site practices for construction
workers on the project site. Therefore, because the COVID-19 virus already exists and is not
something that will result from the project, and because the project is already required to comply
with all applicable local and state COVID-19 health measures, there is no COVID-related health
impact from the project or need to impose additional mitigation measures.
7-1 Comment
The commenter asserts that the MND’s mitigation measures 3 and 4 are vague and improperly
defer critical details and claims an EIR is needed to address the alleged defects in the
measures.
Response:
The mitigation measures recommended in the Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project MND and listed
in the Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Mitigation Measure Reporting Program (MMRP) are
detailed, project specific and identify the responsible party and precise timing of the
implementation of each mitigation measure. Contrary to the comment, the recommended
mitigation measures are practical and feasible and consistent with and in compliance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B). None of the recommended mitigation measures,
including the two measures referenced in the comment, are vague or defer critical details, but
rather are precise and state specifically when their implementation is required.
As stated in the Response to Comment 3-1, the two air quality mitigation measures are not
required by CEQA to mitigate any significant air emissions that exceed (SCAQMD air emission
thresholds of significance since no air quality impacts would occur, but rather reduce air
emissions as much as feasible being that the project is in a non-attainment area for Ozone and
PM10 particulate matter. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires the project contractor to incorporate the
measures listed in Mitigation Measure No. 2 into the grading operations and the mitigation
6
measure further encourages compliance with Rule 403. Similarly, while the projects ROG and
NOx emissions will not exceed their respective thresholds, Mitigation Measure No. 3 is
recommended to further control ROG and NOx emissions. Nonetheless, in response to the
comment and to clarify, the second bullet point in Mitigation Measure No. 3 will be revised to
state that the contractor shall “use Tier 3 or better heavy equipment.” (See Prospect Villa MND
Errata.)
Mitigation Measure No. 4 is also proper, clear and not impermissibly deferred. Indeed, measure
4, which is part of the suite of measures in numbers 4-7 aimed at reducing the project’s potential
impacts to cultural resources, does much more than require a handout as the commenter
alleges. Measure 4 mandates that a qualified professional archaeologist who meets U.S.
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards conduct an Archaeological
Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities
that focuses on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered in the field
and the procedures to be followed to protect the resources for a salvage investigation should
such resources be encountered during construction. This required training session and initial
meeting between the archaeologist and the construction personnel will allow the archaeologist
to fully educate the construction personnel about the archaeological resources that may be
present and how to protect those resources, if discovered.
8-1 Comment
The commenter references CEQA’s fair argument standard of review and asserts that there is a
fair argument that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that as a
result a full EIR is required.
Response:
This comment does not raise or discuss any specific alleged impacts, but rather, simply
references subsequent comments provided later on in the letter that are summarized and
specifically responded to below. However, it should be noted that the City prepared an Initial
Study for the project in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063. Upon completion of
the Initial Study the City determined that all of the project’s potentially significant impacts can
and would be mitigated to levels of insignificance and that there was no other evidence in the
record to the contrary. There is no fair argument based on substantial evidence that the project
will result in significant adverse impacts and thus that an EIR is required.
9-1 Comment
The commenter asserts that the MND fails to support its findings with substantial evidence.
Response:
Again, in this comment the commenter does not discuss or allege any specific MND findings he
asserts are not supported with substantial evidence. Nonetheless, the City believes the
Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project MND provides ample and substantial evidence in support of all
of its conclusions. In compliance with the definition of substantial evidence in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15384 the MND provides the relevant information and reasonable inferences necessary
to support all of its conclusions regarding the significance of the project’s potential impacts. In
the case of the technical studies that were prepared for the project, including air quality, geology
and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water
7
quality, noise and transportation, the City hired consultants in their specific area of expertise.
The information provided in their reports provide the City with substantial evidence that was not
speculative, unsubstantiated, opinionated, erroneous or inaccurate. Copies of all of the
consultant reports are included in the appendices to the MND and available for public review.
The consultant reports along with the detailed analysis in the MND provides the substantial
evidence and fair argument necessary to support the findings and conclusions in the MND.
10-1 Comment
The commenter asserts that the MND fails to supports its findings regarding the project’s
potential transportation impacts with substantial evidence.
Response:
As stated on page 92 of the MND and page 12 of the project traffic report (see Appendix F) the
project is located in three low-VMT generating areas and satisfies the screening criteria for a
low-VMT generating area. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant VMT
impact. The conclusion on page 92 of the MND that the project would have a less than
significant VMT impact is based on substantial evidence on page 12 of the traffic report (see
Appendix F). The VMT analysis and information in the traffic report is substantial evidence
because it is based on the City of Rosemead’s adopted VMT Guidelines that assess VMT
impacts.
The comment focuses on CEQA Guidelines §15064.3(b) and its focus on identifying and
analyzing a project’s impacts associated with vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In compliance with
CEQA Guidelines §15064.3(b) the City of Rosemead adopted VMT guidelines that were
referenced by the traffic consultant to determine potential project VMT impacts.1 Rosemead’s
VMT guidelines establish screening criteria for certain projects that may be presumed to have a
less than significant VMT impact and includes projects located in low-VMT generating areas.
The City’s TIA Guidelines specify the following screening steps: 1) Project Type Screening; 2)
Low VMT Area Screening; and 3) Transit Priority Areas Screening. Some project types have
been identified as having the presumption of a less than significant impact because they are
local serving by nature, or because they are small enough to not warrant assessment. The
residential and commercial screening levels in the City of Rosemead’s VMT guidelines were
used in the project traffic report to determine if the project would have VMT impacts.
The ground floor commercial retail component of the proposed project satisfies the City-
established project type screening criterion for local-serving retail and may be presumed to
result in a less than significant VMT impact (see MND Appendix F, Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan Amendment 21-01 Project Transportation Assessment, Ganddini Group, Inc., October 5,
2021, page 12). The screening criteria for local-serving retail developments was established
based on guidance included in OPR’s Technical Advisory and has become an industry accepted
standard for the region.
As stated on page 14 of the Project Transportation Study included as Appendix F of the MND,
the residential component of the proposed project satisfies the City-established screening
criterion for projects located in low VMT areas (i.e., average daily home-based VMT per capita
is 15% below the average home-based VMT per capita for the San Gabriel Valley Council of
1 City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment,
October 2020.
8
Governments [SGVCOG] region) based on the low VMT screening map developed by the City
of Rosemead; therefore, the project may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT
impact. In addition, the project is also located in a low VMT area for home-based work VMT per
employee and total VMT per service population.
The comment incorrectly states that the project will generate a total of 7,395 daily trips. This
reference to the number of daily trips forecast to be generated appears to have been confused
with Table 1 of the Project Transportation Study, which shows a trip generation estimate for the
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan traffic analysis zone (TAZ) in which the project is located,
including other parcels and not the project alone. The correct trip generation forecast for the
project is shown on Table 4 of the Project Transportation Study as 657 daily trips. The comment
incorrectly states that the project will generate a maximum of “87 vehicle trips during the AM
peak hour and 54 during the PM peak hour. However, the MND bases its impact as not
significant from a realistic of 47 for AM and 30 for PM.” This reference to the number of AM and
PM peak hour trips forecast to be generated appears to have been confused with Table 3 of the
Project Transportation Study, which shows estimates of how many trips were allocated to the
project site from the traffic study for the overall Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. The correct trip
generation forecast for the project is shown on Table 4 of the Project Transportation Study as
42 trips during the AM peak hour and 41 trips during the PM peak hour. Peak hour trip
generation is only relevant for assessing the need to prepare a Level of Service analysis, which
was reviewed on page 12 of the Project Transportation Study and determined to be below the
City-established criteria. Furthermore, the project’s peak hour trip generation and related effect
on automobile delay, as measured by Level of Service, is no longer relevant and shall not
constitute a significant environmental effect (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(a)).
The Project Transportation Study provides ample and substantial evidence in support of the
MND’s conclusion and thoroughly documents that the project satisfies multiple City-established
screening criteria with respect to the potential for VMT impacts, as developed in accordance
with State guidance; therefore, the proposed project was adequately determined to cause no
significant VMT impact, further VMT analysis is not warranted, and no mitigation is necessary.
And the commenter does not claim let alone present any substantial evidence that the project
does not meet the City’s VMT guidelines screening criteria or that the project would have a
significant VMT impact.
11-1 Comment
The commenter claims the MND fails to support its findings on the project’s noise impacts with
substantial evidence due to the alleged omission of information pertaining to the days project
construction will occur.
Response:
The project noise report included in Appendix E of the MND provides substantial evidence
supporting the MND’s conclusion that the project, as mitigated, will not result in any significant
noise impacts and is based on the noise standards in Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC)
8.36.060 and shown in Table 13 on page 75 of the MND. In addition to the noise standards in
RMC 8.36.060, pages 74-75 of the MND refer to the State of California Noise Insulation
Standards (CCR, Title 24, Part 6, Section T25-28) which mandate an interior Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 45 dB for multiple family dwellings, hotel and motel rooms, which is
applicable to the project.
9
Further, contrary to the commenters’ assertion that the MND does not describe when
construction is proposed to occur, as stated on page 79 of the MND, project construction would
be restricted to the hours allowed by Rosemead Municipal Code 8.36.030(A)(3) and thus
construction would only occur between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. during the week and on Saturdays
with no construction permitted on Sundays or federal holidays.
In summary, the MND provides the substantial evidence and information necessary to support
the noise findings and conclusions in Section XIII .
12-1 Comment
The commenter asserts that the MND unlawfully omits information concerning land use and fails
to evaluate consistency of the project with the City’s General Plan, or the applicable Sustainable
Community Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan. Thus, the MND’s land use analysis
needs to be revised to include all relevant consistency analyses where there may be conflicts
with these plans.
Response:
The project is located within the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. The Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan provides land use, zoning and development standards that guide all development within
the Specific Plan boundary. Page 1-4 of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan states, “The Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan will establish land use, transportation, infrastructure, and urban design
strategies that seek to attract investment into the corridor, and promote well-balanced retail
development, mixed-use development, and active public spaces.”
Pages 69-73 of the MND adequately discuss the land use impacts of the project and
appropriately assess its compatibility and consistency with the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
Table 12 on pages 70-71 of the MND identifies the Community Benefits of the project as
allowed by the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan to allow the project as proposed.
Contrary to the comment, the MND provides a lawful and detailed discussion of the potential
land use impacts of the project. The MND concludes that the project is not anticipated to have
any significant land use or zoning impacts.
With regards to the Sustainable Community Strategy or Regional Transportation Plans the
comment seems to be making reference to the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS) or otherwise known as Connect SoCal (https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal). The
2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal or
“Plan”) reflects SCAG’s commitment to improve the region’s mobility, sustainability and
economy. The Plan does not include any land use goals, objectives, etc. and therefore the Plan
is not a land use document that requires CEQA analysis. Since the project site is located in a
low VMT area and would not have a significant VMT impact it does not conflict with the
RTP/SCS.
10
13-1 Comment:
The comment asserts that the MND does not properly evaluate and mitigate the project’s
impacts related to lighting associated with headlights from cars in the ground level parking lot.
Response:
Page 37 of the MND specifically analyzes the potential impacts of the headlights of the cars
leaving the ground level parking area of the building shining onto the residents adjacent to and
north of the site. The project proposes to construct a six-foot decorative masonry wall along the
north project boundary, which would prevent automobile lights entering and leaving the site from
shining directly onto the residential units adjacent to and north of the site. Thus, the headlights
of the cars leaving the ground level parking area of the building would not shine directly onto the
residential units north of the site. Figure 14 in the MND shows landscaped walls that are
proposed on the north side of the project that would prevent headlights of cars on the ground
level from shining directly onto the residences north of the site. The MND concludes on page
41, based in part on the analysis demonstrating that lights from headlights would be blocked by
the wall along the north project boundary, that the lighting impacts of the project would be less
than significant. In sum, the boundary wall proposed as part of the project description and
demonstrated to mitigate headlight spillover effects to adjacent residents does not need to be
duplicated and imposed as a mitigation measure also.
14-1 Comment
The comment provides background on State planning and zoning law and implies that the
project violates the state planning and zoning law and the city’s general plan.
Response:
The comment does not state or provide any evidence to support its comment that the project
violates state planning and zoning law or the Rosemead General Plan. The project site is within
the boundary of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and is required to meet and comply with the
development standards and regulations in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, which includes
applicable Rosemead General Plan design and development standards. As stated on page 69
of the MND the project meets all of the applicable GSP-MU development standards of Table 3.4
of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, including minimum lot size, minimum lot width, mixed-use
land use split, building height and form, building relationship to the street, specific plan
standards, ground floor building design, setbacks for light, air and privacy, pedestrian-friendly
auto circulation and access, and parking. As also stated on pages 70 to 72 the project will
provide the five community benefits shown in Table 12 and as a result, the project is entitled to
specific plan incentives related to FAR, density and residential/commercial retail land use mix..
The applicant is proposing a floor-area land use mix of 68% residential and 32% nonresidential,
which is allowed and in compliance with the 70%/30% land use mix allowed by the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan community benefit incentive. In summary, the MND adequately discusses
and analyzes the project’s potential impacts related to land use and zoning, and demonstrates
that the project will not result in any significant land use impacts because it is consistent with the
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
11
15-1 Comment
The comment alleges that the MND fails to analyze the project’s consistency with the City’s
General Plan, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment and the RTP/SCS as required by
CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d).
Response:
CEQA Guidelines section 15125 pertains to EIRs and thus is not directly applicable to the MND
prepared for this project. Nonetheless, the MND adequately discusses and analyzes the
project’s consistency with applicable land use plans in Section XI b) of the MND. The project is
located within the boundary of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. Pages 69 through 73
specifically discuss how the requested Garvey Avenue Specific Plan amendment to change the
land use designation to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-Use (GSP-MU) to
allow the mixed-use project would comply with the specific plan. These same pages of the
MND also provide substantial evidence of how the proposed Community Benefits are consistent
with and allowed by the specific plan. As discussed on page 72 the project site is zoned Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan (GSP). The proposed mixed use project is not an allowed use within the
existing GSP zone. Therefore, the project applicant is requesting a zone change to Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-Use (GSP-MU) to allow the mixed-use development
for the site. The requested GSP-MU zoning allows the development of mixed-use including
residential, commercial, public and open space land uses. Project approval of the requested
specific plan amendment and zone change would make the project consistent with the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan.
As stated on page 6-6 of the adopted Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, “The City Council, as
empowered by the Rosemead Municipal Code, approved the Specific Plan, Zoning Code
Amendment, Zoning Map amendment, and the related CEQA document on February 13, 2018
with a second reading on February 27, 2018. The City Council found:
• The proposed specific plan is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses,
and programs of the general plan and other adopted goals and policies of the City.
As stated above, the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan is consistent with and implements the
Rosemead General Plan. Therefore, the approval of the project, including the specific plan
amendment and zone change would be consistent with and in compliance with Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan and the Rosemead General Plan.
The project proposes the development of 75 residential units. The Rosemead Housing Element
Update (2021-2029) is allocated a Regional Housing Needs Assessment of 4,612 residential
units for the 6th housing cycle. The development of the proposed 75 housing units is consistent
with and would assist the City towards meeting its 6th housing cycle allocation of 4,612 housing
units.
The comment is making reference to the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS) or otherwise known as Connect SoCal (https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal). Since
the project site is located in a low VMT area and would not have a significant VMT impact it
does not conflict with the RTP/SCS.
APPENDIX A
MITCHELL TSAI MARCH 22, 2022 Letter
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: info@mitchtsailaw.com
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
VIA E-MAIL
March 22, 2022
Mayor Polly Low & City Council
8838 East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
Em: publiccomment@cityofrosemead.org
Lily Valenzuela, Planning and Economic Development Manager
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Boulevard
Santa Maria, CA 93458
Em: ltrinh@cityofrosemead.org
RE: Agenda Item No. 4.a - Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Specific Plan
Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01
Dear Ms. Valenzuela,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest
Carpenters” or “SWRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of
Rosemead’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”)
(SCH No. 2022020365) for the Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project Specific Plan
Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01 (“Project”).
The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union
carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and
addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.
Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work and recreate in the City
and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s
environmental impacts.
SWRCC expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to
hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this
Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens
City of Rosemead – Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project March 22, 2022
Page 2 of 17
for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante
Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
SWRCC incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the IS /
MND submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean
Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who
has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely
raised by other parties).
Moreover, SWRCC requests that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all
notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the
California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and
21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to
any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s
governing body.
The City should require the Applicant provide additional community benefits such as
requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project. The
City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor
Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or
have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which
would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training
program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program
approved by the State of California.
Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements
can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive
economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain
percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the
length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized
economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers
reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As
environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
City of Rosemead – Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project March 22, 2022
Page 3 of 17
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length
from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of
construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the
reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the
project site.
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades
that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce
Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
concluded:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and
investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce
can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words,
well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and
moving California closer to its climate targets.1
Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that
that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained
workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2
Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of
Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help
achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas
consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3
1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A
Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf.
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule –
Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve
Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10.
3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf.
City of Rosemead – Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project March 22, 2022
Page 4 of 17
In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy
into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its
Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional
construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential
developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint
labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires
all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved,
joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As
the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely
to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced
communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would
include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle
hours traveled.6
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy
to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael
Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT
reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to
those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and
trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation
issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:
In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and
housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The
city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents,
4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at
https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown%
20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C).
6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6,
available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs-housing.pdf.
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association
72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT-825.pdf.
City of Rosemead – Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project March 22, 2022
Page 5 of 17
especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational
training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is
voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than
3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When
needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about
negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of
approval for development permits.
The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and
requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air
quality and transportation impacts.
The City should also require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current
2019 California Green Building Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts
and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental goals.
I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers
and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14
California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).8 “Its
purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental
consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only
the environment but also informed self-government.’ [Citation.]” Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as
“an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its
responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological
points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.
App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795,
810.
8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq, are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency
for the implementation of CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or
erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 217.
City of Rosemead – Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project March 22, 2022
Page 6 of 17
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when
possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines
§ 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to
provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect
that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that
environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines
§ 15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency
may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially
lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any
unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding
concerns” specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B).
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the
reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a
project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported
study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1355
(emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal. 3d at 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this
line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure
requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts.
Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v.
County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley
Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355:
A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant
information precludes informed decision-making and informed public
participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.
The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for
agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that
government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full
understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the
public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve these
goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the
project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate
opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is
City of Rosemead – Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project March 22, 2022
Page 7 of 17
made. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80
(quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007)
40 Cal. 4th 412, 449–450).
B. Due to the COVID-19 Crisis, the City Must Adopt a Mandatory Finding
of Significance that the Project May Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect
on Human Beings and Mitigate COVID-19 Impacts
CEQA requires that an agency make a finding of significance when a Project may
cause a significant adverse effect on human beings. PRC § 21083(b)(3); CEQA
Guidelines § 15065(a)(4).
Public health risks related to construction work requires a mandatory finding of
significance under CEQA. Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-
risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health
Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of
community spread of COVID-19.9
SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency adopt additional CEQA mitigation
measures to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities.
SWRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work
practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the
Project Site.
In particular, based upon SWRCC’s experience with safe construction site work
practices, SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency require that while construction
activities are being conducted at the Project Site:
Construction Site Design:
• The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry
points.
• Entry points will have temperature screening technicians
taking temperature readings when the entry point is open.
9 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN
SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/ covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx.
City of Rosemead – Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project March 22, 2022
Page 8 of 17
• The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics
for conducting temperature screening.
• A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior
to the first day of temperature screening.
• The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will
be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social
distancing position for when you approach the screening
area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site
map for additional details.
• There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing
you through temperature screening.
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction
site.
Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non-contact
devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center
and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any
other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or
does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am
to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate
[ZONE 2]
• After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will
continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody
City of Rosemead – Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project March 22, 2022
Page 9 of 17
gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel,
deliveries, and visitors.
• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading
above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be
taken to verify an accurate reading.
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature,
DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be
allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the
individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her
human resources (HR) representative and provide them with
a copy of Annex A.
Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease
Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic
infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal
protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt
identification and isolation of sick individuals, social
distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10
people including all-hands meetings and all-hands lunches)
communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for
Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of
Public Health or applicable local public health agencies.10
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund
has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union
members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require that
10 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building
Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/
NABTU_CPWR_Standards_COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at
https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-safety/docs/pw_guidelines-construction-sites.pdf. ..
City of Rosemead – Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project March 22, 2022
Page 10 of 17
all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being
allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.
C. The MND’s Mitigation Measures are Impermissibly Vague and Defer
Critical Details
The MND improperly defers critical details of mitigation measures. The formulation
of mitigation measures generally cannot be deferred until after certification and
approval of the environmental document and approval of a project. CEQA Guidelines
§ 15126.4(a)(1)(B) ("…[f]ormulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred
until some future time.”).
Deferring critical details of mitigation measures undermines CEQA’s purpose as a
public information and decision-making statute. “[R]eliance on tentative plans for
future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines
CEQA's goals of full disclosure and informed decisionmaking; and[,] consequently,
these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting
improper deferral of environmental assessment.” Communities for a Better Environment v.
City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 92 (“Communities”). As the Court noted in
Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307, “[a] study conducted
after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decision-
making. Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the
sort of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned
in decisions construing CEQA."
A lead agency's adoption of an EIR's proposed mitigation measure for a significant
environmental effect that merely states a “generalized goal” to mitigate a significant
effect without committing to any specific criteria or standard of performance violates
CEQA by improperly deferring the formulation and adoption of enforceable
mitigation measures. San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149
Cal.App.4th 645, 670; Communities, supra,184 Cal.App.4th at 93 ("EIR merely proposes
a generalized goal of no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and then sets out a
handful of cursorily described mitigation measures for future consideration that might
serve to mitigate the [project's significant environmental effects."); cf. Sacramento Old
City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-1029 (upheld EIR that set
forth a range of mitigation measures to offset significant traffic impacts where
performance criteria would have to be met, even though further study was needed and
EIR did not specify which measures had to be adopted by city).].
City of Rosemead – Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project March 22, 2022
Page 11 of 17
The following Project mitigation measures are impermissibly vague and defer critical
details:
1) CR-4: Proposes to retain a qualified to conduct
archaeological sensitivity training. Claims the training will
just be a handout without explaining how the training will be
retained by those undergoing the training.
2) AQ-3: The MND states that it will establish a preference for
contractors using Tier 3 or better heavy equipment but does
not state how contractors will be decided
The City should amend the above mitigation measures in an EIR to specify details of
any needed mitigation plans and what performance standards will be used to ensure
that impacts will be less than significant.
D. The City Should Prepare an EIR for the Project
A strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an EIR is built into CEQA.
This presumption is reflected in what is known as the "fair argument" standard, under
which an agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record
supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal. App.
4th 1597, 1602; Friends of "B" St. v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal. 3d 988, 1002.
The fair argument test stems from the statutory mandate that an EIR be prepared for
any project that "may have a significant effect on the environment." Pub. Res. Code
(“PRC”) § 21151; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. App. 3d 68, 75; Jensen
v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 877, 884. Under this test, if a proposed
project is not exempt and may cause a significant effect on the environment, the lead
agency must prepare an EIR. PRC §§ 21100(a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines §
15064(a)(1), (f)(1). An EIR may be dispensed with only if the lead agency finds no
substantial evidence in the initial study or elsewhere in the record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment. Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City
Council (2013) 222 Cal. App. 4th 768, 785. In such a situation, the agency must adopt a
negative declaration. PRC § 21080(c)(1); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15063(b)(2),
15064(f)(3).
"Significant effect upon the environment" is defined as "a substantial or potentially
substantial adverse change in the environment." PRC § 21068; CEQA Guidelines §
City of Rosemead – Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project March 22, 2022
Page 12 of 17
15382. A project "may" have a significant effect on the environment if there is a
"reasonable probability" that it will result in a significant impact. No Oil, Inc. v. City of
Los Angeles, 13 Cal. 3d at 83 fn. 16; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App.
3d 296, 309. If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the
environment, an EIR must be prepared even if the overall effect of the project is
beneficial. CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1). See County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of
Kern (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1580.
This standard sets a "low threshold" for preparation of an EIR. Consolidated Irrig. Dist.
V. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 187, 207; Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 190
Cal. App. 4th 252; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903,
928; Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 572, 580; Citizen Action to Serve
All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 748, 754; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino
(1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 310. If substantial evidence in the record supports a fair
argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency
must prepare an EIR even if other substantial evidence before it indicates the project
will have no significant effect. See Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th
877, 886; Clews Land & Livestock v. City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal. App. 5th 161, 183;
Stanislaus Audubon Soc'y, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 144, 150;
Brentwood Ass'n for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 491;
Friends of "B" St. v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 988; CEQA Guidelines §
15064(f)(1).
As explained in full below, there is a fair argument that the Project will have a
significant effect on the environment. As a result, the “low threshold” for preparation
of an EIR has been met and the City must prepare an EIR.
E. The MND Fails to Support Its Findings with Substantial Evidence
When new information is brought to light showing that an impact previously discussed
in the EIR but found to be insignificant with or without mitigation in the EIR’s
analysis has the potential for a significant environmental impact supported by
substantial evidence, the EIR must consider and resolve the conflict in the evidence.
See Visalia Retail, L.P. v. City of Visalia (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 1, 13, 17; see also Protect
the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099,
1109. While a lead agency has discretion to formulate standards for determining
significance and the need for mitigation measures—the choice of any standards or
thresholds of significance must be “based to the extent possible on scientific and
City of Rosemead – Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project March 22, 2022
Page 13 of 17
factual data and an exercise of reasoned judgment based on substantial evidence.
CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b); Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts
(2017) 3 Cal. App. 5th 497, 515; Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Inv. &
Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 160, 206. And when there is evidence that an
impact could be significant, an EIR cannot adopt a contrary finding without providing
an adequate explanation along with supporting evidence. East Sacramento Partnership for
a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 281, 302.
In addition, a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent
significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential
impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. In Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v.
Department of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1, the court set aside an EIR for a
statewide crop disease control plan because it did not include an evaluation of the risks
to the environment and human health from the proposed program but simply
presumed that no adverse impacts would occur from use of pesticides in accordance
with the registration and labeling program of the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation. See also Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection
(2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 936, 956 (fact that Department of Pesticide Regulation had
assessed environmental effects of certain herbicides in general did not excuse failure to
assess effects of their use for specific timber harvesting project).
1. The MND Fails to Support its Findings on Transportation Impacts with
Substantial Evidence.
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b) requires analysis of a Project’s vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) impacts as part of the environmental document’s transportation impacts
analysis.
The Project does not meet any of CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3’s screening criteria for
concluding a less than significant transportation impact relating to vehicle miles
traveled. (Appendix E, p. 2.) The MND’s transportation analysis estimates that the
Project will generate a total of 7,395 daily trips with a max of 87 vehicle trips during
the AM peak hour and 54 during the PM peak hour. However, the MND bases its
impact on not significant from a realistic of 47 for AM and 30 for PM. The MND
should look at feasible mitigation requirements for peak hours. By failing to
demonstrate what are the feasible mitigations for peak hours on both AM and PM, the
Project is able to claim no significant traffic impact.
City of Rosemead – Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project March 22, 2022
Page 14 of 17
The MND should be revised with a full analysis of VMT and any mitigation measures
that would be required to reduce potentially significant impacts.
2. The MND Fail to Support its Findings on Noise Impact with
Substantial Evidence Due to Omission of Information
CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G requires an analysis to determine whether persons
would be exposed to excessive noise levels based upon standards established in local
general plans, ordinances, or any other applicable standards.
Here, the MND does not state which days of operation during construction and yet is
able to somehow say that the impact is less than significant with mitigations. Does
construction happen only during the operating hours? Does construction happen on
the weekends? It is uncertain as the MND does not explain when exactly construction
occurs.
The MND should be revised to demonstrate when construction is planned for and
which hours.
3. The MND Unlawfully Omits Information Concerning Land
Use.
CEQA requires that an environmental document identify and discuss the significant
effects of a Project, alternatives and how those significant effects can be mitigated or
avoided. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2; PRC §§ 21100(b)(1), 21002.1(a). An
environmental documents discussion of potentially significant effects must “provide an
adequate analysis to inform the public how its bare numbers translate to create potential
adverse impacts or it must adequately explain what the agency does know and why,
given existing scientific constraints, it cannot translate potential . . . [environmental]
impacts further.” Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 521; see also
citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988)
47 Cal.3d 376, 405; see also PRC §§ 21002.1(e), 21003(b).
The Court may determine whether a CEQA environmental document sufficiently
discloses information required by CEQA de novo as “noncompliance with the
information disclosure provisions” of CEQA is a failure to proceed in a manner
required by law. PRC § 21005(a); see also Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.
5th 502, 515; CEQA Guidelines.
City of Rosemead – Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project March 22, 2022
Page 15 of 17
The MND fails to evaluate consistency of this Project with the City’s General Plan, or
the applicable Sustainable Community Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan.
Thus, the MND’s land use analysis needs to be revised to include all relevant
consistency analyses where there may be conflicts with these plans.
4. The MND Fails to Property Evaluate and Mitigate the Project’s Impact
Relating to Lighting
According to the MND, the Project has a significant impact because the headlights of
cars exiting the project site onto Prospect Avenue would onto existing residential
development. This impact would be mitigated by building a six-foot wall along the
north project boundary to mitigate the impact from headlights from the cars in the
ground level parking lot that would otherwise shine onto the yards and residences of
the residents adjacent to and north of the project. (MND, p. 37).
However, the Project fails to analyze this impact and it fails to adopt the mitigation
measure. The recommended mitigation measure 1 for light reducing (MND p. 41) is
not properly adopted and fails to address or mitigate the above described impacts.
II. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE STATE PLANNING AND ZONING
LAW AS WELL AS THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN
A. Background Regarding the State Planning and Zoning Law
Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan
governing development. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors
(2001) 91 Cal. App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300. The general plan
sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy (See DeVita v. County of Napa (1995)
9 Cal. App. 4th 763, 773), and serves as a “constitution” or “charter” for all future
development. Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal. App. 3d
531, 540.
General plan consistency is “the linchpin of California’s land use and development
laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force
of law.” See Debottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204, 1213.
State law mandates two levels of consistency. First, a general plan must be internally
or “horizontally” consistent: its elements must “comprise an integrated, internally
consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.” (See Gov.
Code § 65300.5; Sierra Club v. Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal. App. 3d 698, 704.) A
City of Rosemead – Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project March 22, 2022
Page 16 of 17
general plan amendment thus may not be internally inconsistent, nor may it cause the
general plan as a whole to become internally inconsistent. See DeVita, 9 Cal. App. 4th
at 796 fn. 12.
Second, state law requires “vertical” consistency, meaning that zoning ordinances and
other land use decisions also must be consistent with the general plan. (See Gov.
Code § 65860(a)(2) [land uses authorized by zoning ordinance must be “compatible
with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the
[general] plan.”]; see also Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156
Cal. App. 3d 1176, 1184.) A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the general plan or
impedes achievement of its policies is invalid and cannot be given effect. See Lesher,
52 Cal. App. 3d at 544.
State law requires that all subordinate land use decisions, including conditional use
permits, be consistent with the general plan. See Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2);
Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal. App. 3d at 1184.
A project cannot be found consistent with a general plan if it conflicts with a general
plan policy that is “fundamental, mandatory, and clear,” regardless of whether it is
consistent with other general plan policies. See Endangered Habitats League v. County of
Orange (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 777, 782-83; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado
County v. Bd. of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 1332, 1341-42 (“FUTURE”).
Moreover, even in the absence of such a direct conflict, an ordinance or development
project may not be approved if it interferes with or frustrates the general plan’s policies
and objectives. See Napa Citizens, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 378-79; see also Lesher, 52 Cal.
App. 3d at 544 (zoning ordinance restricting development conflicted with growth-
oriented policies of general plan).
B. The MND is Required to Review the Project’s Consistency with Regional
Housing Plans, Sustainable Community Strategy and Regional
Transportation Plans
CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d) requires that an environmental document “discuss
any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans, specific
plans and regional plans. See also Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020)
50 Cal. App. 5th 467, 543.
The MND should thoroughly evaluate the consistency of this Project with the City’s
General Plan, City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment targets, Sustainable
City of Rosemead – Prospect Villa Mixed-Use Project March 22, 2022
Page 17 of 17
Community Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan. The MND fails to analyze the
Project’s consistency with any of these applicable plans.
III. CONCLUSION
SWRCC request that the City revise and recirculate the IS / MND for public comment
to address the aforementioned concerns. If the City has any questions or concerns, feel
free to contact my Office.
Sincerely,
______________________
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Attached:
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A);
Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and
Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C).
EXHIBIT A
1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
March 8, 2021
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling
Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report
explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with
respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for
local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the
potential GHG impacts.
Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model
designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental
professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both
construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related
emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile
equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition,
truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating
activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated
with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3
1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.
3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
2
Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”)
associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod
calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT,
including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip
length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n
Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following
equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:
Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6
Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT
and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running
emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall
trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.
Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements
As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to
calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the
Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip
length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker
trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as
land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project
type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-
specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by
substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the
4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15.
5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23.
6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15.
7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9.
3
number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the
building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25
percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the
default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The
operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are:
“[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values
were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also
assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12
Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when
modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air
basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Minimum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.
10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15.
11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14.
12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21.
13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86.
4
As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8-
miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7-
miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban
worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker
trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent
upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location.
Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact
To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions,
we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in
the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail
space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified
as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip
length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s
construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10
miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be
implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17%
(see table below and Attachment C).
Local Hire Provision Net Change
Without Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77
With Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80
% Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project
could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire
requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a
reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on
the location and urbanization level of the project site.
This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG
emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related
GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on
the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and
location.
14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85.
5
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we
retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional
services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of
service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and
protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which
were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain
informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of
information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Location Type Location Name Rural H-W
(miles)
Urban H-W
(miles)
Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8
Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3
Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11
Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8
Air Basin San Francisco
10.8 10.8
Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8
Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8
Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8
Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54
Air District Calaveras
16.8 10.8
Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8
Air District El Dorado
16.8 10.8
Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8
Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8
Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3
Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mariposa
16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino
16.8 10.8
Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air District Monterey Bay
16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast
16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern
16.8 10.8
Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8
Air District Sacramento 15 10
Attachment A
Air District San Diego
16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin
16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo
13 13
Air District Santa Barbara
8.3 8.3
Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8
Air District Siskiyou County
16.8 10.8
Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8
Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8
Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10
County Alameda 10.8 10.8
County Alpine 16.8 10.8
County Amador 16.8 10.8
County Butte 12.54 12.54
County Calaveras 16.8 10.8
County Colusa 16.8 10.8
County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8
County Del Norte 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-16.8 10.8
County Fresno 16.8 10.8
County Glenn 16.8 10.8
County Humboldt 16.8 10.8
County Imperial 10.2 7.3
County Inyo 16.8 10.8
County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8
County Kern-San 16.8 10.8
County Kings 16.8 10.8
County Lake 16.8 10.8
County Lassen 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles-16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles-19.8 14.7
County Madera 16.8 10.8
County Marin 10.8 10.8
County Mariposa 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Merced 16.8 10.8
County Modoc 16.8 10.8
County Mono 16.8 10.8
County Monterey 16.8 10.8
County Napa 10.8 10.8
County Nevada 16.8 10.8
County Orange 19.8 14.7
County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8
County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8
County Placer-16.8 10.8
County Plumas 16.8 10.8
County Riverside-16.8 10.8
County Riverside-
19.8 14.7
County Riverside-Salton 14.6 11
County Riverside-South 19.8 14.7
County Sacramento 15 10
County San Benito 16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-
16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-
19.8 14.7
County San Diego 16.8 10.8
County San Francisco 10.8 10.8
County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
County San Luis Obispo 13 13
County San Mateo 10.8 10.8
County Santa Barbara-
8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara-
8.3 8.3
County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8
County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8
County Shasta 16.8 10.8
County Sierra 16.8 10.8
County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8
County Solano-15 10
County Solano-San 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8
County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8
County Sutter 16.8 10.8
County Tehama 16.8 10.8
County Trinity 16.8 10.8
County Tulare 16.8 10.8
County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
County Ventura 16.8 10.8
County Yolo 15 10
County Yuba 16.8 10.8
Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Rural (miles)Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Mininum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 1 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Attachment B
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 2 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 3 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1.8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003
0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1969 213.1969 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993
2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682
6
1,721.682
6
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7
2023 0.6148 3.3649 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529
5
1,627.529
5
0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
5
2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004
0.0325 6.4700e-
003
0.0390 8.6300e-
003
6.0400e-
003
0.0147 0.0000 52.9078 52.9078 8.0200e-
003
0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682
6
1,721.682
6
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 4 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1.8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003
0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1967 213.1967 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991
2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682
3
1,721.682
3
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3
2023 0.6148 3.3648 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529
1
1,627.529
1
0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
1
2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004
0.0325 6.4700e-
003
0.0390 8.6300e-
003
6.0400e-
003
0.0147 0.0000 52.9077 52.9077 8.0200e-
003
0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682
3
1,721.682
3
0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4103 1.4103
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3613 1.3613
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1985 1.1985
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1921 1.1921
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1918 1.1918
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 1.0774
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0320 1.0320
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 1.0260 1.0260
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 5 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 1.0265 1.0265
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8857 2.8857
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6207 1.6207
Highest 2.8857 2.8857
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 6 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 7 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 8 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 9 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 10 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 9.7000e-
004
7.5000e-
004
8.5100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4900e-
003
6.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003
0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004
6.4100e-
003
2.1000e-
004
6.6200e-
003
1.7300e-
003
2.0000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003
0.0000 19.7136
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 11 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 9.7000e-
004
7.5000e-
004
8.5100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4900e-
003
6.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003
0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004
6.4100e-
003
2.1000e-
004
6.6200e-
003
1.7300e-
003
2.0000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003
0.0000 19.7136
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 12 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 13 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9900e-
003
5.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.7814
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 14 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 15 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003
1.2700e-
003
0.0144 4.0000e-
005
4.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
003
1.1100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1400e-
003
0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7607
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 16 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 17 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6684
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 18 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003
1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003
0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773
Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795
2
1,408.795
2
0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120
8
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 19 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003
1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003
0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773
Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795
2
1,408.795
2
0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120
8
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 20 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003
1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003
0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003
1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003
0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9
1,327.336
9
0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 21 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003
1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003
0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003
1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003
0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9
1,327.336
9
0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 22 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 23 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
004
3.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0800e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 24 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 25 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.8100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4706
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 26 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2.8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2.8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 27 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2.8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003
0.0835 2.8000e-
004
0.0307 2.3000e-
004
0.0309 8.1500e-
003
2.2000e-
004
8.3700e-
003
0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004
0.0000 24.9558
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 28 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 29 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 30 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 31 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 32 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 33 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 34 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 35 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 36 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 37 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 38 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 39 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 40 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 41 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 42 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 43 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 44 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0.0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6,234.797
4
6,234.797
4
1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535
2
2022 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
2023 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 0.7322 3.3702 0.0000 14,807.52
69
14,807.52
69
1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15
21
2024 237.1630 9.5575 15.1043 0.0244 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 2,361.398
9
2,361.398
9
0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342
1
Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2769 46.4588 31.6840 0.0643 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6,234.797
4
6,234.797
4
1.9495 0.0000 6,283.535
2
2022 5.3304 38.8967 49.5629 0.1517 9.8688 1.6366 10.7727 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
2023 4.8957 26.3317 46.7567 0.1472 9.8688 0.7794 10.6482 2.6381 0.7322 3.3702 0.0000 14,807.52
69
14,807.52
69
1.0250 0.0000 14,833.15
20
2024 237.1630 9.5575 15.1043 0.0244 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 2,361.398
9
2,361.398
9
0.7177 0.0000 2,379.342
1
Maximum 237.1630 46.4588 49.5629 0.1517 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 15,251.56
74
15,251.56
74
1.9503 0.0000 15,278.52
88
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0643 0.0442 0.6042 1.7100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 170.8155 170.8155 5.0300e-
003
170.9413
Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056
8
1,463.056
8
0.0927 1,465.375
0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0643 0.0442 0.6042 1.7100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 170.8155 170.8155 5.0300e-
003
170.9413
Total 0.1916 4.1394 1.5644 0.0136 0.4346 0.0139 0.4485 0.1176 0.0133 0.1309 1,463.056
8
1,463.056
8
0.0927 1,465.375
0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Total 0.0772 0.0530 0.7250 2.0600e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 204.9786 204.9786 6.0400e-
003
205.1296
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Total 0.0857 0.0589 0.8056 2.2900e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 227.7540 227.7540 6.7100e-
003
227.9217
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Total 0.0803 0.0532 0.7432 2.2100e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 219.7425 219.7425 6.0600e-
003
219.8941
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13.2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 3.2162 2.1318 29.7654 0.0883 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,800.685
7
8,800.685
7
0.2429 8,806.758
2
Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23
39
12,697.23
39
0.4665 12,708.89
66
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13.2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 3.2162 2.1318 29.7654 0.0883 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,800.685
7
8,800.685
7
0.2429 8,806.758
2
Total 3.6242 15.3350 33.1995 0.1247 9.8688 0.0949 9.9637 2.6381 0.0883 2.7263 12,697.23
39
12,697.23
39
0.4665 12,708.89
66
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 3.0203 1.9287 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440
8
8,478.440
8
0.2190 8,483.916
0
Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31
70
12,252.31
70
0.4172 12,262.74
60
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 3.0203 1.9287 27.4113 0.0851 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 8,478.440
8
8,478.440
8
0.2190 8,483.916
0
Total 3.3229 11.9468 30.5127 0.1203 9.8688 0.0797 9.9485 2.6381 0.0738 2.7118 12,252.31
70
12,252.31
70
0.4172 12,262.74
60
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Total 0.0566 0.0361 0.5133 1.5900e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 158.7723 158.7723 4.1000e-
003
158.8748
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Total 0.0535 0.0329 0.4785 1.5400e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 153.8517 153.8517 3.7600e-
003
153.9458
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Total 0.5707 0.3513 5.1044 0.0165 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,641.085
2
1,641.085
2
0.0401 1,642.088
6
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0.0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6,221.493
7
6,221.493
7
1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221
4
2022 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
2023 5.2705 26.4914 44.5936 0.1413 9.8688 0.7800 10.6488 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0.0000 14,210.34
24
14,210.34
24
1.0230 0.0000 14,235.91
60
2024 237.2328 9.5610 15.0611 0.0243 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 2,352.417
8
2,352.417
8
0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355
0
Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2865 46.4651 31.6150 0.0642 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 6,221.493
7
6,221.493
7
1.9491 0.0000 6,270.221
4
2022 5.7218 38.9024 47.3319 0.1455 9.8688 1.6366 10.7736 3.6558 1.5057 5.1615 0.0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
2023 5.2705 26.4914 44.5936 0.1413 9.8688 0.7800 10.6488 2.6381 0.7328 3.3708 0.0000 14,210.34
24
14,210.34
24
1.0230 0.0000 14,235.91
60
2024 237.2328 9.5610 15.0611 0.0243 1.7884 0.4698 1.8628 0.4743 0.4322 0.5476 0.0000 2,352.417
8
2,352.417
8
0.7175 0.0000 2,370.355
0
Maximum 237.2328 46.4651 47.3319 0.1455 18.2675 2.0461 20.3135 9.9840 1.8824 11.8664 0.0000 14,630.30
99
14,630.30
99
1.9499 0.0000 14,657.26
63
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0715 0.0489 0.5524 1.6100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 160.8377 160.8377 4.7300e-
003
160.9560
Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693
2
1,430.693
2
0.0955 1,433.081
2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0715 0.0489 0.5524 1.6100e-
003
0.1677 1.3500e-
003
0.1690 0.0445 1.2500e-
003
0.0457 160.8377 160.8377 4.7300e-
003
160.9560
Total 0.2019 4.1943 1.5706 0.0133 0.4346 0.0141 0.4487 0.1176 0.0135 0.1311 1,430.693
2
1,430.693
2
0.0955 1,433.081
2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Total 0.0858 0.0587 0.6629 1.9400e-
003
0.2012 1.6300e-
003
0.2028 0.0534 1.5000e-
003
0.0549 193.0052 193.0052 5.6800e-
003
193.1472
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Total 0.0954 0.0652 0.7365 2.1500e-
003
0.2236 1.8100e-
003
0.2254 0.0593 1.6600e-
003
0.0610 214.4502 214.4502 6.3100e-
003
214.6080
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Total 0.0896 0.0589 0.6784 2.0800e-
003
0.2236 1.7500e-
003
0.2253 0.0593 1.6100e-
003
0.0609 206.9139 206.9139 5.7000e-
003
207.0563
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 3.5872 2.3593 27.1680 0.0832 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,286.901
3
8,286.901
3
0.2282 8,292.605
8
Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97
63
12,075.97
63
0.4663 12,087.63
41
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 3.5872 2.3593 27.1680 0.0832 8.9533 0.0701 9.0234 2.3745 0.0646 2.4390 8,286.901
3
8,286.901
3
0.2282 8,292.605
8
Total 4.0156 15.5266 30.9685 0.1186 9.8688 0.0957 9.9645 2.6381 0.0891 2.7271 12,075.97
63
12,075.97
63
0.4663 12,087.63
41
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 3.3795 2.1338 24.9725 0.0801 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731
8
7,983.731
8
0.2055 7,988.868
3
Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13
25
11,655.13
25
0.4151 11,665.50
99
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 3.3795 2.1338 24.9725 0.0801 8.9533 0.0681 9.0214 2.3745 0.0627 2.4372 7,983.731
8
7,983.731
8
0.2055 7,988.868
3
Total 3.6978 12.1065 28.3496 0.1144 9.8688 0.0803 9.9491 2.6381 0.0743 2.7124 11,655.13
25
11,655.13
25
0.4151 11,665.50
99
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Total 0.0633 0.0400 0.4677 1.5000e-
003
0.1677 1.2800e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1700e-
003
0.0456 149.5081 149.5081 3.8500e-
003
149.6043
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Total 0.0601 0.0364 0.4354 1.4500e-
003
0.1677 1.2600e-
003
0.1689 0.0445 1.1600e-
003
0.0456 144.8706 144.8706 3.5300e-
003
144.9587
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Total 0.6406 0.3886 4.6439 0.0155 1.7884 0.0134 1.8018 0.4743 0.0123 0.4866 1,545.286
0
1,545.286
0
0.0376 1,546.226
2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Unmitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:49 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 1 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 2 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 3 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1704 1.8234 1.1577 2.3800e-
003
0.4141 0.0817 0.4958 0.1788 0.0754 0.2542 0.0000 210.7654 210.7654 0.0600 0.0000 212.2661
2022 0.5865 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655
4
1,418.655
4
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
5
2023 0.5190 3.2850 4.7678 0.0147 0.8497 0.0971 0.9468 0.2283 0.0912 0.3195 0.0000 1,342.441
2
1,342.441
2
0.1115 0.0000 1,345.229
1
2024 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.0000e-
004
0.0221 6.3900e-
003
0.0285 5.8700e-
003
5.9700e-
003
0.0118 0.0000 44.6355 44.6355 7.8300e-
003
0.0000 44.8311
Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655
4
1,418.655
4
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
5
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 4 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1704 1.8234 1.1577 2.3800e-
003
0.4141 0.0817 0.4958 0.1788 0.0754 0.2542 0.0000 210.7651 210.7651 0.0600 0.0000 212.2658
2022 0.5865 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655
0
1,418.655
0
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
1
2023 0.5190 3.2850 4.7678 0.0147 0.8497 0.0971 0.9468 0.2283 0.0912 0.3195 0.0000 1,342.440
9
1,342.440
9
0.1115 0.0000 1,345.228
7
2024 4.1592 0.1313 0.2557 5.0000e-
004
0.0221 6.3900e-
003
0.0285 5.8700e-
003
5.9700e-
003
0.0118 0.0000 44.6354 44.6354 7.8300e-
003
0.0000 44.8311
Maximum 4.1592 4.0240 5.1546 0.0155 0.9509 0.1175 1.0683 0.2518 0.1103 0.3621 0.0000 1,418.655
0
1,418.655
0
0.1215 0.0000 1,421.692
1
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4091 1.4091
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3329 1.3329
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1499 1.1499
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1457 1.1457
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1415 1.1415
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0278 1.0278
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.9868 0.9868
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.9831 0.9831
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 5 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 0.9798 0.9798
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8757 2.8757
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6188 1.6188
Highest 2.8757 2.8757
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 6 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073
2
3,896.073
2
0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3
Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18
07
12,531.15
19
15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 7 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 8 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 9 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 10 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.2000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
6.0900e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.6800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.6900e-
003
4.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 1.5281 1.5281 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.5293
Total 2.6500e-
003
0.0639 0.0209 2.0000e-
004
5.6200e-
003
2.0000e-
004
5.8200e-
003
1.5300e-
003
1.9000e-
004
1.7200e-
003
0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0161
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 7.5100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004
0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003
0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 11 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003
0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e-
004
3.9400e-
003
1.9000e-
004
4.1300e-
003
1.0800e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.2600e-
003
0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003
0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.2000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
6.0900e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.6800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.6900e-
003
4.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 1.5281 1.5281 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.5293
Total 2.6500e-
003
0.0639 0.0209 2.0000e-
004
5.6200e-
003
2.0000e-
004
5.8200e-
003
1.5300e-
003
1.9000e-
004
1.7200e-
003
0.0000 18.9847 18.9847 1.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0161
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 12 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Total 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004
0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 13 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Total 5.8000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
4.8700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.3500e-
003
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2225 1.2225 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2234
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 14 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3.0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Total 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3.0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003
0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 15 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3.0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Total 1.2200e-
003
9.0000e-
004
0.0103 3.0000e-
005
2.8300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.5808 2.5808 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.5828
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 16 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Total 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004
0.0807 5.7200e-
003
0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003
0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003
0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 17 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Total 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4587 0.4587 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4590
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 18 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.3051 0.2164 2.5233 7.3500e-
003
0.7557 6.2300e-
003
0.7619 0.2007 5.7400e-
003
0.2065 0.0000 663.9936 663.9936 0.0187 0.0000 664.4604
Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e-
003
0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e-
003
0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977
1
1,105.977
1
0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103
9
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003
0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 19 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e-
003
0.1140 3.1800e-
003
0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003
0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.3051 0.2164 2.5233 7.3500e-
003
0.7557 6.2300e-
003
0.7619 0.2007 5.7400e-
003
0.2065 0.0000 663.9936 663.9936 0.0187 0.0000 664.4604
Total 0.3578 1.9125 2.9812 0.0119 0.8696 9.4100e-
003
0.8790 0.2336 8.7800e-
003
0.2424 0.0000 1,105.977
1
1,105.977
1
0.0451 0.0000 1,107.103
9
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 20 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.2795 0.1910 2.2635 6.9100e-
003
0.7377 5.9100e-
003
0.7436 0.1960 5.4500e-
003
0.2014 0.0000 624.5363 624.5363 0.0164 0.0000 624.9466
Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e-
003
0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e-
003
0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529
4
1,042.529
4
0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509
0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003
0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 21 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e-
003
0.1113 1.4600e-
003
0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003
0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.2795 0.1910 2.2635 6.9100e-
003
0.7377 5.9100e-
003
0.7436 0.1960 5.4500e-
003
0.2014 0.0000 624.5363 624.5363 0.0164 0.0000 624.9466
Total 0.3177 1.4420 2.6646 0.0112 0.8490 7.3700e-
003
0.8564 0.2281 6.8500e-
003
0.2349 0.0000 1,042.529
4
1,042.529
4
0.0392 0.0000 1,043.509
0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 22 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Total 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.7100e-
003
0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
3.3200e-
003
3.0500e-
003
3.0500e-
003
0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003
0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 23 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Total 2.8000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.6156 0.6156 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6160
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 24 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Total 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004
5.1500e-
003
5.1500e-
003
4.7400e-
003
4.7400e-
003
0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003
0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 25 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Total 4.4000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
3.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2400e-
003
3.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.0094 1.0094 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0100
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 26 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1.9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Total 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1.9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1600e-
003
0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
1.0700e-
003
0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 27 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1.9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Total 7.4800e-
003
4.9300e-
003
0.0596 1.9000e-
004
0.0209 1.6000e-
004
0.0211 5.5500e-
003
1.5000e-
004
5.7000e-
003
0.0000 17.1287 17.1287 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 17.1394
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 28 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498
6
7,620.498
6
0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 29 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 30 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5
2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7
1,383.426
7
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 31 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 32 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003
0.0188 8.0100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
1.5200e-
003
0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.30613e
+007
0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003
0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408
General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003
0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004
4.6000e-
004
25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
8.30736e
+006
0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003
0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e-
003
8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006
9.3900e-
003
0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
6.4900e-
003
0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
93.4557
Quality
Restaurant
1.84608e
+006
9.9500e-
003
0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
6.8800e-
003
0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003
1.8100e-
003
99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004
4.5000e-
003
3.7800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003
0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8
1,383.426
8
0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 33 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 34 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003
2.9000e-
004
33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9
0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9
General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003
1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003
1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003
9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003
2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5
0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 35 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 36 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003
0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e-
003
3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004
0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540
Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003
0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e-
003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 37 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 38 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 39 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.62885 /
1.02688
10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003
12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise
63.5252 /
40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building
7.99802 /
4.90201
53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003
61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
10.9272 /
0.697482
51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003
62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /
0.140927
6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003
7.5079
Quality
Restaurant
2.42827 /
0.154996
11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003
13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center
4.14806 /
2.54236
27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003
31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 40 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 41 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 42 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building
41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant
7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center
58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 43 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:26 PMPage 44 of 44
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0.0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,163.416
6
6,163.416
6
1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103
9
2022 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
2023 4.1534 25.7658 38.7457 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 0.7136 2.5935 0.0000 12,150.48
90
12,150.48
90
0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46
15
2024 237.0219 9.5478 14.9642 0.0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,313.180
8
2,313.180
8
0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095
6
Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2561 46.4415 31.4494 0.0636 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,163.416
6
6,163.416
6
1.9475 0.0000 6,212.103
9
2022 4.5441 38.8811 40.8776 0.1240 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
2023 4.1534 25.7658 38.7457 0.1206 7.0088 0.7592 7.7679 1.8799 0.7136 2.5935 0.0000 12,150.48
90
12,150.48
90
0.9589 0.0000 12,174.46
15
2024 237.0219 9.5478 14.9642 0.0239 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,313.180
8
2,313.180
8
0.7166 0.0000 2,331.095
5
Maximum 237.0219 46.4415 40.8776 0.1240 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,493.44
03
12,493.44
03
1.9485 0.0000 12,518.57
07
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Total 41.1168 67.2262 207.5497 0.6278 45.9592 2.4626 48.4217 12.2950 2.4385 14.7336 0.0000 76,811.18
16
76,811.18
16
2.8282 0.4832 77,025.87
86
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0487 0.0313 0.4282 1.1800e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 117.2799 117.2799 3.5200e-
003
117.3678
Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521
2
1,409.521
2
0.0912 1,411.801
5
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1273 4.0952 0.9602 0.0119 0.2669 0.0126 0.2795 0.0732 0.0120 0.0852 1,292.241
3
1,292.241
3
0.0877 1,294.433
7
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0487 0.0313 0.4282 1.1800e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 117.2799 117.2799 3.5200e-
003
117.3678
Total 0.1760 4.1265 1.3884 0.0131 0.3810 0.0135 0.3946 0.1034 0.0129 0.1163 1,409.521
2
1,409.521
2
0.0912 1,411.801
5
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Total 0.0584 0.0375 0.5139 1.4100e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 140.7359 140.7359 4.2200e-
003
140.8414
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Total 0.0649 0.0417 0.5710 1.5700e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 156.3732 156.3732 4.6900e-
003
156.4904
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Total 0.0607 0.0376 0.5263 1.5100e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 150.8754 150.8754 4.2400e-
003
150.9813
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13.2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 2.4299 1.5074 21.0801 0.0607 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 6,042.558
5
6,042.558
5
0.1697 6,046.800
0
Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106
7
9,939.106
7
0.3933 9,948.938
4
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4079 13.2032 3.4341 0.0364 0.9155 0.0248 0.9404 0.2636 0.0237 0.2873 3,896.548
2
3,896.548
2
0.2236 3,902.138
4
Worker 2.4299 1.5074 21.0801 0.0607 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 6,042.558
5
6,042.558
5
0.1697 6,046.800
0
Total 2.8378 14.7106 24.5142 0.0971 7.0087 0.0741 7.0828 1.8799 0.0691 1.9490 9,939.106
7
9,939.106
7
0.3933 9,948.938
4
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 2.2780 1.3628 19.4002 0.0584 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,821.402
8
5,821.402
8
0.1529 5,825.225
4
Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279
0
9,595.279
0
0.3511 9,604.055
4
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3027 10.0181 3.1014 0.0352 0.9156 0.0116 0.9271 0.2636 0.0111 0.2747 3,773.876
2
3,773.876
2
0.1982 3,778.830
0
Worker 2.2780 1.3628 19.4002 0.0584 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,821.402
8
5,821.402
8
0.1529 5,825.225
4
Total 2.5807 11.3809 22.5017 0.0936 7.0088 0.0595 7.0682 1.8799 0.0552 1.9350 9,595.279
0
9,595.279
0
0.3511 9,604.055
4
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Total 0.0427 0.0255 0.3633 1.0900e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 109.0150 109.0150 2.8600e-
003
109.0866
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Total 0.0403 0.0233 0.3384 1.0600e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 105.6336 105.6336 2.6300e-
003
105.6992
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Total 0.4296 0.2481 3.6098 0.0113 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,126.758
3
1,126.758
3
0.0280 1,127.458
3
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
Unmitigated 9.8489 45.4304 114.8495 0.4917 45.9592 0.3360 46.2951 12.2950 0.3119 12.6070 50,306.60
34
50,306.60
34
2.1807 50,361.12
08
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:29 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0
Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72
Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 1 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.
Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.
Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.
Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.
Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.
Trips and VMT - Local hire provision
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 14.70 10.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 2 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 3 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0.0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,154.337
7
6,154.337
7
1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018
6
2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0.0000 11,710.40
80
11,710.40
80
0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44
97
2024 237.0656 9.5503 14.9372 0.0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,307.051
7
2,307.051
7
0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962
7
Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 4 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.2621 46.4460 31.4068 0.0635 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 6,154.337
7
6,154.337
7
1.9472 0.0000 6,203.018
6
2022 4.7966 38.8851 39.6338 0.1195 8.8255 1.6361 10.4616 3.6369 1.5052 5.1421 0.0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
2023 4.3939 25.8648 37.5031 0.1162 7.0088 0.7598 7.7685 1.8799 0.7142 2.5940 0.0000 11,710.40
80
11,710.40
80
0.9617 0.0000 11,734.44
97
2024 237.0656 9.5503 14.9372 0.0238 1.2171 0.4694 1.2875 0.3229 0.4319 0.4621 0.0000 2,307.051
7
2,307.051
7
0.7164 0.0000 2,324.962
7
Maximum 237.0656 46.4460 39.6338 0.1195 18.2032 2.0456 20.2488 9.9670 1.8820 11.8490 0.0000 12,035.34
40
12,035.34
40
1.9482 0.0000 12,060.60
13
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 5 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Energy 0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mobile 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Total 40.7912 67.7872 202.7424 0.6043 45.9592 2.4640 48.4231 12.2950 2.4399 14.7349 0.0000 74,422.37
87
74,422.37
87
2.8429 0.4832 74,637.44
17
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 6 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500
5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 7 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 8 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 9 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e-
003
110.5539
Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326
2
1,380.326
2
0.0941 1,382.679
1
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.3074 0.0000 3.3074 0.5008 0.0000 0.5008 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 1.5513 1.5513 1.4411 1.4411 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Total 3.1651 31.4407 21.5650 0.0388 3.3074 1.5513 4.8588 0.5008 1.4411 1.9419 0.0000 3,747.944
9
3,747.944
9
1.0549 3,774.317
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 10 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1304 4.1454 1.0182 0.0117 0.2669 0.0128 0.2797 0.0732 0.0122 0.0854 1,269.855
5
1,269.855
5
0.0908 1,272.125
2
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0532 0.0346 0.3963 1.1100e-
003
0.1141 9.5000e-
004
0.1151 0.0303 8.8000e-
004
0.0311 110.4707 110.4707 3.3300e-
003
110.5539
Total 0.1835 4.1800 1.4144 0.0128 0.3810 0.0137 0.3948 0.1034 0.0131 0.1165 1,380.326
2
1,380.326
2
0.0941 1,382.679
1
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 11 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 0.0000 3,685.656
9
3,685.656
9
1.1920 3,715.457
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 12 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Total 0.0638 0.0415 0.4755 1.3300e-
003
0.1369 1.1400e-
003
0.1381 0.0363 1.0500e-
003
0.0374 132.5649 132.5649 3.9900e-
003
132.6646
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 13 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 8.6733 1.9853 10.6587 3.5965 1.8265 5.4230 0.0000 6,007.043
4
6,007.043
4
1.9428 6,055.613
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 14 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Total 0.0709 0.0462 0.5284 1.4800e-
003
0.1521 1.2700e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1700e-
003
0.0415 147.2943 147.2943 4.4300e-
003
147.4051
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 15 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.6733 0.0000 8.6733 3.5965 0.0000 3.5965 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 8.6733 1.6349 10.3082 3.5965 1.5041 5.1006 0.0000 6,011.410
5
6,011.410
5
1.9442 6,060.015
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 16 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Total 0.0665 0.0416 0.4861 1.4300e-
003
0.1521 1.2300e-
003
0.1534 0.0404 1.1300e-
003
0.0415 142.1207 142.1207 4.0000e-
003
142.2207
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 17 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935
4
5,691.935
4
0.1602 5,695.940
8
Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010
4
9,481.010
4
0.3984 9,490.969
1
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333
6
2,554.333
6
0.6120 2,569.632
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 18 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.4284 13.1673 3.8005 0.0354 0.9155 0.0256 0.9412 0.2636 0.0245 0.2881 3,789.075
0
3,789.075
0
0.2381 3,795.028
3
Worker 2.6620 1.6677 19.4699 0.0571 6.0932 0.0493 6.1425 1.6163 0.0454 1.6617 5,691.935
4
5,691.935
4
0.1602 5,695.940
8
Total 3.0904 14.8350 23.2704 0.0926 7.0087 0.0749 7.0836 1.8799 0.0699 1.9498 9,481.010
4
9,481.010
4
0.3984 9,490.969
1
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 19 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797
4
5,483.797
4
0.1442 5,487.402
0
Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198
1
9,155.198
1
0.3538 9,164.043
7
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209
9
2,555.209
9
0.6079 2,570.406
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 20 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.3183 9.9726 3.3771 0.0343 0.9156 0.0122 0.9277 0.2636 0.0116 0.2752 3,671.400
7
3,671.400
7
0.2096 3,676.641
7
Worker 2.5029 1.5073 17.8820 0.0550 6.0932 0.0479 6.1411 1.6163 0.0441 1.6604 5,483.797
4
5,483.797
4
0.1442 5,487.402
0
Total 2.8211 11.4799 21.2591 0.0893 7.0088 0.0601 7.0688 1.8799 0.0557 1.9356 9,155.198
1
9,155.198
1
0.3538 9,164.043
7
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 21 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584
1
2,207.584
1
0.7140 2,225.433
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 22 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total 0.0469 0.0282 0.3349 1.0300e-
003
0.1141 9.0000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.3000e-
004
0.0311 102.6928 102.6928 2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 23 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547
2
2,207.547
2
0.7140 2,225.396
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 24 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Total 0.0444 0.0257 0.3114 1.0000e-
003
0.1141 8.8000e-
004
0.1150 0.0303 8.1000e-
004
0.0311 99.5045 99.5045 2.4700e-
003
99.5663
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 25 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 236.4115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 236.5923 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 26 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Total 0.4734 0.2743 3.3220 0.0107 1.2171 9.4300e-
003
1.2266 0.3229 8.6800e-
003
0.3315 1,061.381
8
1,061.381
8
0.0264 1,062.041
0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 27 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
Unmitigated 9.5233 45.9914 110.0422 0.4681 45.9592 0.3373 46.2965 12.2950 0.3132 12.6083 47,917.80
05
47,917.80
05
2.1953 47,972.68
39
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227
Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065
General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937
Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488
Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221
Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 28 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44
Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 29 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.7660 6.7462 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 30 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1283.42 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4769.72 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 31 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.11916 0.0121 0.1031 0.0439 6.6000e-
004
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
8.3400e-
003
131.6662 131.6662 2.5200e-
003
2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35.7843 0.3859 3.2978 1.4033 0.0211 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 0.2666 4,209.916
4
4,209.916
4
0.0807 0.0772 4,234.933
9
General Office
Building
1.28342 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
150.9911 150.9911 2.8900e-
003
2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22.7599 0.2455 2.2314 1.8743 0.0134 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 0.1696 2,677.634
2
2,677.634
2
0.0513 0.0491 2,693.546
0
Hotel 4.76972 0.0514 0.4676 0.3928 2.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 561.1436 561.1436 0.0108 0.0103 564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5.05775 0.0545 0.4959 0.4165 2.9800e-
003
0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 0.0377 595.0298 595.0298 0.0114 0.0109 598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
0.251616 2.7100e-
003
0.0247 0.0207 1.5000e-
004
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
29.6019 29.6019 5.7000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
29.7778
Total 0.7660 6.7463 4.2573 0.0418 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 0.5292 8,355.983
2
8,355.983
2
0.1602 0.1532 8,405.638
7
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 32 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 33 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.2670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
24.1085 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.6500 14.1000 6.0000 0.0900 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 1.1400 0.0000 18,000.00
00
18,000.00
00
0.3450 0.3300 18,106.96
50
Landscaping 2.4766 0.9496 82.4430 4.3600e-
003
0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 0.4574 148.5950 148.5950 0.1424 152.1542
Total 30.5020 15.0496 88.4430 0.0944 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 0.0000 18,148.59
50
18,148.59
50
0.4874 0.3300 18,259.11
92
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 34 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PMPage 35 of 35
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)3,623
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 120.77
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)3,024
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 100.80
% Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
Local Hire Provision Net Change
With Local Hire Provision
Without Local Hire Provision
Attachment C
EXHIBIT B
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for
evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and
transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills,
boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial
and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to
evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate,
asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among
other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is
an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance
impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld
directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about
pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on
more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil
Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property
Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and
distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users
Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids
Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters
thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third
World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile
organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American
Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.;
Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse,
R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis,
Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United
States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted
from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United
States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the
United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture
conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in
populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air
Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and
Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing
Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A
Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment
Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted
from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture
conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala,
Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on
Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia
Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting &
Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel,
Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton
Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA
Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater
Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from
Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related
Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and
Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability
and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental
Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento,
California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh
International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical
Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus
Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California
CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA
Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and
Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water
Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture
conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a
Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from
Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water
Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted
from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery
Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil
Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from
Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from
Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three
Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim
California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science
100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on
the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New
Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage
tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1,
2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San
Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation
Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,
Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of
Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on
VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of
polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the
Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts
in West Indies. 1993
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey
Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido”
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa
Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants
Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles
Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC
Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division
Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish
Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico
Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward
DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma
Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City
Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants
Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
EXHIBIT C
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine
years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science
Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from
perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of
the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement
actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working
with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the
application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt
has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of
Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports
since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water
resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic
hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the
local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and
implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins
and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.
• Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former
Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.
• Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.
• Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
2
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
3
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports,
conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very
concerned about the impact of designation.
4
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
5
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
• Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in
Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE
Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater
Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,
Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy
of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water
Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a
meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address
Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and
State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
8
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐
2011.
9
Attachment M
Project Conditions of Approval
1
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 21-01 ZONE CHANGE 21-01
(ORDINANCE NO. 1008 AND RESOLUTION 2022-18)
7539 & 7545 GARVEY AVENUE
(APNS: 5286-022-009 AND 5286-022-010)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
April 12, 2022
Standard Conditions of Approvals
1. Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01 (“Project”) are approved for the
amendment of the Zoning Map by changing the zone of 7539 & 7545 Garvey Avenue from
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-
Use (GSP-MU) zone, for the development of a seven-story, mixed-use development with
6,346 square feet of nonresidential (commercial) use on the first floor and 75 residential units
on the first through seventh floors. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted
for the review and approval of the Planning Division.
2. The following conditions must be complied to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior
to final approval of the associated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, or any other
appropriate request.
3. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any development plans
subsequently submitted to the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, and Public
Works Department.
4. Approval of Project shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant(s) have filed with
the City of Rosemead (“City”) a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of and accepts
all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions
within ten (10) days from the Planning Commission approval date.
5. The on-site public hearing notice posting shall be removed by the end of the 10-day appeal
period of Project.
6. Project is approved for a period of one (1) year. The applicant(s) shall commence the approved
project or request an extension within 30 calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1) year
initial approval period shall be effective from the Planning Commission approval date. For
the purpose of this petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the
permitting process with the Planning and Building Divisions, so long as the project is not
abandoned. If Project has been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1)
year, it shall become null and void.
2
7. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve
minor modifications to the project and to these conditions of approval.
8. Project is granted or approved with the City and its Planning Commission and City Council
retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including
the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include,
but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature
of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of
right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning
Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or
approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed
on Project.
9. The applicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of
Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval
of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is
brought within the time period provided by law.
10. The applicant(s) shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved
use, including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff, and Health
Departments.
11. Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time as all plan
check fees and all other applicable fees are paid in full. Prior to issuance of building permits,
any required school fees shall be paid. The applicant shall provide the City with written
verification of compliance from the applicable school districts.
12. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six (6) inches tall with a minimum character
width of 3/4 inch, contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street.
Materials, colors, location, and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the
Community Development Director, or his/her designee, prior to installation.
13. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any federal holiday. The
applicant shall abide by the noise control sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
14. The Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, and Public Works Department shall
have access to the project site at any time during construction to monitor progress.
15. All requirements of the Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, and Public Works
Department shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction.
16. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow prevention
3
devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces, and other equipment) shall be located away
from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be
seen from the public right-of-way.
17. All new roof-top appurtenances and equipment shall be adequately screened from view to the
satisfaction of the Planning Division. Such equipment shall not exceed the height of the
parapet wall. There shall be no mechanical equipment located on the sides of the building.
18. The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re-painted periodically to
City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In accordance with the Rosemead
Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be
maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
19. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation
proceedings.
20. The applicant(s) shall keep the electrical and mechanical equipment and/or emergency exits
free of any debris, storage, furniture, etc., and maintain a minimum clearance of five (5) feet.
Project Specific Conditions of Approval
21. All property that is vacant, under construction, or being demolished shall be totally enclosed
around the perimeter by a fence that is a minimum of six (6) feet in height as measured from
adjacent property, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or other
designated officials. The following requirements shall be satisfied:
a. The required fence shall be adequately constructed from chain-link, lumber,
masonry or other approved materials. The fence shall be entirely self-supporting
and shall not encroach or utilize structures or fencing on any adjacent property
without prior written approval of the adjacent property owner.
b. The fence shall be installed prior to the initiation of any construction or demolition
and shall be continuously maintained in good condition.
c. Signs stating "PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING" shall be posted on the
fence.
22. A final wall plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to
the issuance of building permits. All walls and/or fences height shall comply with the
requirements in the Rosemead Municipal Code and shall consist of decorative material, which
match or complement the residential buildings in color, material, and design.
23. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti-free state.
24. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed and litter-free state. All trash containers shall be
stored in the approved trash enclosure at all times. All trash and garbage receptacles shall be
4
regularly inspected and cleaned, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition.
25. All trash enclosures shall be designed to be an integral part of the overall project design, and
utilize complementary colors and materials. All trash enclosures shall have a solid roof cover
and doors shall be opaque, self-closing, and self-latching. Detailed elevations shall be
submitted to the Planning Division for review, and if satisfactory, approval, prior to submittal
to the Building and Safety Division.
26. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review
and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape and irrigation plan shall
comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and with the Guidelines for
Implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and include a sprinkler system
with automatic timers and moisture sensors.
27. All parking spaces shall comply with the currently applicable section of the Rosemead
Municipal Code. All covered parking spaces shall be free and clear with no obstruction.
28. To deter vehicular traffic from entering into the residential neighborhood, a “left-turn only”
sign shall be posted at the project driveway exit. The City’s Traffic Engineer shall determine
placement of such sign.
29. All delivery vehicles for the nonresidential space on the ground level would enter the site
from Prospect Avenue and park in a designated loading area on the ground level for site
deliveries. Delivery trucks would be restricted to two axle trucks. Delivery trucks would not
be allowed to park along either Prospect Avenue or Garvey Avenue.
30. Truck deliveries shall occur only during off-peak hours so that any potential conflict between
trucks, residents, and customers of the project site land uses will be minimal. All truck
deliveries shall comply with Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 8.36.
31. Pickup trucks equipped to lift dumpsters shall be utilized to move solid waste and recyclable
materials from the trash enclosures to the street, adjacent to the site on the City designated
day for trash collection for normal trash collection. At the end of the day, the private pickup
truck would return the dumpsters to their respective location within the parking structure.
32. Prior to the issuance of Building permits, the Developer shall develop a comprehensive
Construction Management Plan, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division,
Building and Safety Division, and Public Works Department. The Construction Management
Plan shall address security of site and equipment, noise, vibrations, traffic control, parking,
debris removal, staging, dust control, sanitary facilities, and other potential construction
impacts, as well as other details involving the means and methods of completing the project,
including the construction equipment route. The City has the authority to require
modifications and amendments to the Construction Management Plan as deemed necessary
throughout the course of the project and until the final inspection.
5
33. A construction notice shall be mailed to residents within a 300’ radius from the project site to
inform them of the commencement of construction. The notice shall me mailed ten days prior
to commencement.
34. Any exterior lighting shall be fully shielded and directed downwards as to not project over
the property lines of the subject site.
35. The applicant shall submit a Master Sign Program for the mixed-use development to the
Planning Division for review and approval prior to finalization of building permits for the
project.
36. The developer shall make all efforts within the first six months of the leasing period to
incorporate national or regional tenants into the commercial leasing spaces.
37. All open areas not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped and
maintained on a regular basis. Maintenance procedures of such landscaped and common areas
shall be specifically stated in the CC&Rs prior to issuance of any building permit.
38. Restrictions and/or covenants shall be recorded on the property to ensure the benefits or
amenities provided to earn the Community Benefit Incentives are maintained in perpetuity.
The project includes five community benefit incentives totaling 131 earned points for a 3.0
floor area ratio (FAR) and density of 80 units/acre. The type of benefit and points earned are
listed below:
a. Lot Consolidation – 35 points
b. Family Friendly Development – 50 points
c. Nonresidential Component of Mixed-Use Development Sites – 20 points and
5% increase in residential to make the split 70% residential to 30% commercial
d. Public Parking – 6 points
e. Sustainable Design (CAL-Green Tier 1) – 20 points
f. Alternative Energy – 30 Points
Public Works Conditions of Approval
39. Copy all conditions of approval and the Planning decision letter onto all permit plan sets.
40. The approved building address(s) shall be painted on the curb to the City’s standard as
required by the Public Works Inspector before the final inspection.
41. Rehabilitate existing AC street pavement along the property frontage to the centerline of the
street or pay an in-lieu fee equal to the estimated cost of street rehabilitation based on the Los
Angeles County Land Development Division Bond Calculation Sheets before the issuance of
6
building permits to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee. There is a street-cut
moratorium on Garvey.
42. Any trenching asphalt or concrete pavement or street or sidewalk removal related to the
project repair shall match the existing surfaces and as directed by the City Engineer or his
designee. New pavement thickness shall be one inch greater than the existing. There is a
street-cut moratorium on Garvey.
43. Dedicate street R/W to match the ultimate R/W condition, when applicable.
44. The required street improvements shall include those portions of roadways contiguous to the
subject property and include:
a. Reconstruct existing and construct new driveway approaches with current ADA
bypass requirements per SPPWC, latest edition. No portion of the driveway and/or
parkway shall encroach to the frontage of the adjacent property. Remove and
replace relocated driveway approaches with sidewalk and curb and gutter.
b. Remove and reconstruct all damaged and/or off-grade curbs, gutters, ADA ramps,
driveway approaches, and sidewalks.
c. Install street storm drain catch basin trash grates adjacent to the property (type to
match City standard), when applicable.
45. Historical or existing stormwater flow from adjacent lots must be received and directed by
gravity to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or an approved drainage easement.
46. Prepare and submit hydrology and hydraulic calculations for the sizing of all proposed
drainage devices. The analysis shall also determine if changes in the post-development versus
pre-development conditions have occurred. The analysis shall be stamped by a California
State Registered Civil Engineer and prepared per the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works Hydrology Method.
47. All grading projects require an Erosion Control Plan as part of the grading plans. A grading
permit will not be issued until and Erosion Control Plan is approved by the Engineering
Department.
48. If the project is greater than one acre, a Storm Water Pollution Plan is required. A Notice of
Intent (NOI) shall be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. When submitting
the SWPPP for the City’s review, please include the NOI and the Waste Discharger
Identification (WDID) number.
49. Adjust, relocate, and/or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements or other physical
improvements to comply with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect on the date the
City determined the application to be complete all to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department.
7
50. Submit a LID plan and comply with all NPDES requirements.
51. If applicable, install Full Capture Devices (FCDs) on each storm drain catch basin adjacent to
the property pursuant Los Angeles River Trash TMDL requirements and City standard.
52. Show clearly all existing lot lines and proposed lot line on the plans.
53. Provide a complete boundary and topographic survey.
54. Show any easement on the plans as applicable.
55. A Lot Merger or Covenant to Hold All Parcels as one shall be required, dependent on the City
Engineer’s determination.
Traffic
56. Comply with all traffic requirements.
57. If the project generates 50 or more new peak-hour vehicle trips, then a traffic impact study
will need to be completed. A trip generation table with distribution of project trips at each
driveway should be submitted to City Engineering and Traffic to determine the extent and
scope of the Traffic Analysis required.
58. Internal access, on-site parking, and line of sight at each project driveway shall be submitted
to determine if off-site parking restrictions are necessary.
Sewer
59. If applicable, approval of this land division is contingent upon providing a separate sewer
lateral to serve each lot of the land division.
60. Conduct a sewer capacity study per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
Guidelines of existing sewer facilities that serve the proposed development. The developer
shall either pay in-lieu fees equal to the estimated cost (based on Los Angeles County Land
Development Division Bond Calculation Sheets) of the proposed development’s percentage
of the design capacity of the existing sewer system prior to the issuance of building permits
or provide sewer improvements to deficient sewer segments serving the subject property to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
61. Based on the project sewer analysis and the design capacity conditions of the existing sewer
system in relation to the proposed project, sewer main/trunk line improvements and/or in-lieu
fees shall be required.
62. All existing laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the public right of way to the
8
satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Building Official of the City of Rosemead.
Utilities
63. All power, telephone, cable television, and all utilities to the project and adjacent to the project
shall be underground.
64. Any utilities that conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense.
65. Provide a street lighting plan and parking lot lighting plan.
Water
66. Prior to the filing of the final map, there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a statement
from the water purveyor indicating compliance with the Fire Chief's fire flow requirements.
67. Water hydrant, water meter box and utilities box shall be located 8 feet away from parkway
trees and 3 feet away from driveway approach.
68. Prior to the approval of the tentative map, there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a
statement from the water purveyor and fire department indicating compliance with the Fire
Chief's fire flow requirements.
Mitigation Measure Conditions
Aesthetics
69. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan
for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates the following light reducing measures
as applicable:
a. Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/or different lighting
distribution.
b. Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures.
c. Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures.
d. Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies.
e. A combination of the above.
Air Quality
70. Prior to the start and throughout project construction, the contractor shall implement and
maintain the following fugitive dust control measures:
a. Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive areas.
9
b. Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the construction site
(typically 2-3 times/day).
c. Cover all stockpiles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed.
d. Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials.
e. Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone.
f. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material and require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
g. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.
71. Throughout project construction the contractor shall:
a. Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.
b. Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better heavy equipment.
c. Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment.
Cultural Resources
72. The project developer shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets U.S.
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, to conduct an
Archaeological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of
excavation activities. The training session shall be carried out by a cultural resource
professional with expertise in archaeology, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and Standards. The training session shall include a handout and
will focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered during
earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of
archaeological monitors, and the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist would
follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary.
73. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground disturbing activities,
ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so
that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around
the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until a qualified
archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of
the find. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. All archaeological
resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified
professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be
prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be contacted and consulted, and
Native American construction monitoring shall be initiated. The project developer and the
City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the
resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery
excavations to address treatment of the resource along with subsequent laboratory
processing and analysis.
74. The project developer shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S.
10
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards to conduct periodic
Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below 2’ feet to determine if construction
excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological resources.
After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks shall be conducted at
the discretion of the qualified archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that
construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological
artifacts construction monitoring for Archaeological Resources shall be required. The
project developer shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who will work under the
guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist, who meets the qualifications set
forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. The
archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading,
trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill younger Pleistocene alluvial sediments.
Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological
monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading
activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated
(native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance
and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to
part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist.
75. The archaeological monitor, under the direction of a qualified professional archaeologist
who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards,
shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall
be submitted to the project developer, the South Central Costal Information Center, the City,
and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory
completion of the project and required mitigation measures. The report shall include a
description of resources unearthed, if any, evaluation of the resources with respect to the
California Register and CEQA, and treatment of the resources.
Noise
76. All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and other suitable noise
attenuation devices (e.g., engine shields).
77. Grading and construction contractors shall use rubber-tired equipment rather than track
equipment, to the maximum extent feasible.
78. If feasible, electric hook-ups shall be provided to avoid the use of generators. If electric
service is determined to be infeasible for the site, only whisper-quiet generators shall be
used (i.e., inverter generators capable of providing variable load.
79. Electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment shall be used,
where feasible.
80. Generators and stationary construction equipment shall be staged and located as far from
11
the adjacent residential structures as feasible.
81. Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and
portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes.
82. A sign shall be posted in a readily visible location at the project site that indicates the dates
and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number where
residents can enquire about the construction process and register complaints to an assigned
construction noise disturbance coordinator.
83. Dozers shall not operate within 25 feet of the north property line.
Tribal Cultural Resources
84. Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the project site, the project
applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of
Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. A copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City
of Rosemead Planning and Building Department prior to the issuance of any permit
necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The Tribal monitor shall only be
present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities.
Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Tribe as activities that may include, but are
not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring,
grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor
shall complete daily monitoring logs that shall provide descriptions of the day’s activities,
including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The
on-site monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing activities on the project site are
completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and Tribal Monitor have indicated that all
upcoming ground-disturbing activities at the project site have little to no potential to impact
Tribal Cultural Resources.
85. Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources, construction activities shall cease in the
immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be
assessed. All Tribal Cultural Resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by
the qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the Consulting Tribe. If the
resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribe shall retain it/them in the
form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic
purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the project
site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the county coroner shall be notified
per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5.
Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public
Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue on other parts of the
project site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5[f]). If a non-Native American resource is determined by the qualified
archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time
allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or
12
appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources
shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources
and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place
(i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible,
treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to
remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic
archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public,
non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to
accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered
to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
Attachment N
Architectural Plans
970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107LOS ANGELES, CA 90012p. 213.537.0910info@scaleslab.comwww.scaleslab.comPROSPECT VILLAPROJECTPROSPECT VILLA7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.ROSEMEAD, CA 91770OWNERDEL MAR PROPERTY LLC120 E. VALLEY BLVD.SAN GABRIEL, CA 91776
PROJECT DATA
A-100
970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA21-11-10 SHEET INDEXA 000 COVER SHEETA 100 PROJECT DATAA 101SITE / FIRST FLOOR PLANA 1022ND FLOOR PLANA 1033RD FLOOR PLANA 1044TH FLOOR PLANA 1055TH FLOOR PLANA 106 6TH FLOOR PLANA 1077TH FLOOR PLANA 108 ROOF PLANA 200UNIT PLANSA 201UNIT PLANSA 300ELEVATIONSA 301ELEVATIONSA 310RENDERINGA 311 RENDERINGA 312RENDERINGA 313RENDERINGA 400SECTIONS7539-7545 Garvey Ave. Rosemead CA
5' WIDE PARKWAY (AMENITY ZONE)7' WIDE DETACHED SIDEWALK (CLEAR ZONE)7' WIDE DETACHED SIDEWALK (CLEAR ZONE)5' WIDE PARKWAY (AMENITY ZONE)LAUNDRYLAUNDRYLAUNDRYLAUNDRYELEV LOBBYLOADING
AREA
ELECTRICALROOMRAMP UP TO 2ND FLR 42 PARKING SPACESRETAIL±6,346 SFOPENSPACEPLAZAOPEN SPACE LIVE WORK197'-7"210'-0"6'-2"5'-11"
25'-0"
40'-10"
3'-0"
9'-0"
TYP.1'-0"3'-0"
33'-1"30'-10"25'-6"UTILITY/STORAGECOMMERCIALTRASHRESIDENTIALTRASH16% RAMPTRANS-FORMEROPENTO SKYABOVE15'-7"COMMERCIALBICYCLEPARKINGUPUPUP4'-4"25'-0"COMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL
2'-0"2'-0"CORRIDORA1
A3A224'-2"25'-0"CANOPYABOVE (TYP)2'-0"5'-0"(E) FIREHYDRANTADA CURB RAMP±47'-6"7'-0"52'-10"95'-7"123'-3"30'-10"
5'-0"7'-0"CANOPYABOVE(TYP)(N) DRIVEWAY(N) CMU WALL W/VINES PLANTED6 FEET APART(N) CMU WALLCCCC
RESIDENT
GUEST
RESIDENT
GUEST
RESIDENT
GUEST
RESIDENT
GUEST
RESIDENT
GUEST
RESIDENT
GUEST
RESIDENT
GUEST
RESIDENT
GUEST
RESIDENT
GUEST
RESIDENT
GUEST
RESIDENT
GUEST
RESIDENT
GUEST
RESIDENT
GUEST
PUBLIC
PARKING
RESIDENT
GUEST
PUBLIC
PARKING
PUBLIC
PARKING
RESIDENT
GUEST
RESIDENTIALBIKE STORAGEOPENSPACEA4PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE5'-0"COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
RESIDENT
GUEST
RESIDENT
GUEST
RESIDENT
GUEST SECUREDENTRANCE/EXITROLL UP GATESECUREDENTRANCE/EXITROLL UP GATERESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENTGUESTRESIDENT
GUEST CABDEF87654321GI82'-0"22'-0"5'-0"1A4002A4002'-0"2'-0"2'-0"
2'-0"SECUREDENTRANCE/EXITROLL UP GATEPATIO 110 SFPATIO 110 SFPATIO 110 SFPA TIO 110 SF
BIO FILTRATIONPLANTER, PER CIVIL(N) TREE(N) TREEUTILITYROOM9'-0"
TYP.18'-0"TYP.METAL GATESCREENINGCOMMERCIAL COMMERCIALMAILCCC
LIVE/WORK
GUEST
COMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL
COMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL
AMMENITIESRETAIL2 BEDROOM3 BEDROOMCOURTYARD/OPEN AREALIVE-WORK UNITSPLAN LEGENDSECURED PARKINGAREA4 BEDROOMEXTERIOR LIGHT(WALL SCONCE)2'-0" CLEAR8'-0"1'-0"8'-0"9'-0"9'-0"18'-0"2'-0" CLEARPARKING STALLS SHALL BE STRIPED WITHTHREE-INCH DOUBLE LINES, SIX INCHESAPART. THE STALL WIDTH SHALL BEMEASURED FROM THE CENTER POINT OFEACH DOUBLE STRIPED MARKING.WALL OROBSTRUCTION16'-0"
16'-0"
18'-0"3"6"3"3"6"3"3"
3"STALL WIDTHSTALL LENGHT
COMPACT PARKINGSTANDARD PARKING1'-0"WALL OROBSTRUCTION970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
SITE/1ST FLOOR PLAN
A-101NORTHSCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"PARKING BREAKDOWN:PARKING STANDARD DIAGRAM:21-11-10
RAMP UP TO 3RD LVL.RAMP DN TO 1ST LVLELEV LOBBY57 PARKING SPACESOPEN SPACECABDEF87654321GI8LIVE WORKLIVE WORK26'-0"16'-0"18'-0"25'-0"54'-0"25'-2"
6'-2"6'-0"18'-0"TYP.9'-0"
TYP.
4'-11"6'-10"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE33'-1"197'-7"210'-0"UPUTILITY16% RAMP REFUSEUPUP2'-0"LIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKGUEST23'-10"LIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKGUESTRESIDENT
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
CCCCCCCCCCCCCORRIDORCORRIDOR
B1LIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTCCCC2'-0"CLIVE/WORKRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENT
GUEST
6'-7"11'-7"6'-8"22'-7"6'-8"10'-5"6'-0"35'-8"1A4002A40029'-6"31'-5"16'-0"11'-10"AMMENITIESRETAIL2 BEDROOM3 BEDROOMCOURTYARD/OPEN AREALIVE-WORK UNITSPLAN LEGENDSECURED PARKINGAREA4 BEDROOMEXTERIOR LIGHT(WALL SCONCE)970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
2ND FLOOR PLAN
A-102NORTHSCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"21-11-10
CABDEF87654321GIELEV LOBBYRAMP DN TO 2ND LVLOPEN SPACE48 PARKING SPACESOPEN SPACELIVE WORKLIVE WORK18'-0"26'-0"25'-0"54'-0"25'-0"6'-4"8'-9"9'-0"TYP.18'-0"
TYP.PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE39'-5"4'-5"6'-9"1'-0"197'-7"210'-0"UPUTILITYUTILITYUPREFUSELIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTRESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
RESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENT
2'-0"
2'-0"C
CORRIDORCORRIDOR
C1RESIDENTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTLIVE/WORKGUESTRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTLIVE/WORKGUESTRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENT2'-2"2'-2"RESIDENTRESIDENTRESIDENTCCCCCC6'-7"11'-7"6'-8"22'-7"6'-8"10'-5"6'-0"37'-5"6'-11"12'-8"6'-11"12'-8"
8'-0"1A4002A400LIVE/WORKRESIDENTLIVE/WORKRESIDENTCAMMENITIESRETAIL2 BEDROOM3 BEDROOMCOURTYARD/OPEN AREALIVE-WORK UNITSPLAN LEGENDSECURED PARKINGAREA4 BEDROOMEXTERIOR LIGHT(WALL SCONCE)970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
3RD FLOOR PLAN
A-103NORTHSCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"21-11-10
ELEV LOBBYCOURTYARDLAUNDRYLAUNDRYLIVE WORKLIVE WORKLIVE WORK
LIVE WORK
LIVE WORKPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE6'-9"40'-3"51'-0"8'-3"197'-7"210'-0"UPUTILITYUPLIVE WORK
CORRIDOR
CORRIDOR D16'-0"6'-0"37'-5"6'-11"12'-9"6'-0"0"75'-7"37'-10"37'-7"40'-0"6'-0"6'-8"10'-5"6'-8"10'-10"6'-8"11'-7"
6'-8"10'-11"6'-8"10'-5"1A4002A400LOGIA/LOUNGEKID'S ROOM/LIBRARYTOT LOT100'-6"AMMENITIESRETAIL2 BEDROOM3 BEDROOMCOURTYARD/OPEN AREALIVE-WORK UNITSPLAN LEGENDSECURED PARKINGAREA4 BEDROOMEXTERIOR LIGHT(WALL SCONCE)970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
4TH FLOOR PLAN
A-104NORTHSCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"21-11-10
ELEV LOBBYPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE56'-10"4'-3"7'-11"11"197'-7"210'-0"UPUTILITYUPOPEN SPACECORRIDOR
CORRIDORCORRIDOR E16'-0"37'-5"6'-11"12'-9"6'-8"10'-5"6'-8"10'-10"6'-8"11'-7"
6'-8"22'-5"6'-8"10'-5"6'-8"11'-0"37'-10"37'-9"37'-7"37'-10"40'-0"NOTE:KEY CARD REQUIREDTO ACCESS RESIDENTIALSTAND-ALONE UNITS1A4002A400AMMENITIESRETAIL2 BEDROOM3 BEDROOMCOURTYARD/OPEN AREALIVE-WORK UNITSPLAN LEGENDSECURED PARKINGAREA4 BEDROOMEXTERIOR LIGHT(WALL SCONCE)970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
5TH FLOOR PLAN
A-105NORTHSCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"21-11-10
ELEV LOBBYOPEN SPACE 2B-LPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE62'-7"4'-3"7'-11"11"197'-7"210'-0"UPUTILITYFLOOR ABOVETRELLIS ABOVEOPEN SPACEUPOPEN SPACEF1F2
OPEN SPACE
F3 F412'-9"6'-11"6'-8"6'-8"10'-5"10'-10"6'-8"11'-7"
6'-8"10'-11"6'-8"10'-5"6'-11"12'-8"6'-0"37'-5"37'-9"37'-10"37'-10"37'-7"40'-0"NOTE:KEY CARD REQUIREDTO ACCESS RESIDENTIALSTAND-ALONE UNITS1A4002A40033'-0"
32'-10"10'-3"10'-4"31'-9"
31'-10"AMMENITIESRETAIL2 BEDROOM3 BEDROOMCOURTYARD/OPEN AREALIVE-WORK UNITSPLAN LEGENDSECURED PARKINGAREA4 BEDROOMEXTERIOR LIGHT(WALL SCONCE)970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
6TH FLOOR PLAN
A-106NORTHSCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"21-11-10
ELEV LOBBY2B-LPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE68'-4"4'-3"7'-11"196'-6"210'-0"UPUTILITYUPOPEN SPACETRELLIS ABOVEG16'-11"6'-0"37'-5"6'-11"6'-0"
6'-0"6'-8"11'-7"6'-8"11'-7"
6'-8"10'-11"6'-8"10'-5"12'-8"12'-8"37'-9"37'-10"37'-10"37'-7"40'-0"NOTE:KEY CARD REQUIREDTO ACCESS RESIDENTIALSTAND-ALONE UNITS1A4002A40027'-4"AMMENITIESRETAIL2 BEDROOM3 BEDROOMCOURTYARD/OPEN AREALIVE-WORK UNITSPLAN LEGENDSECURED PARKINGAREA4 BEDROOMEXTERIOR LIGHT(WALL SCONCE)970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
7TH FLOOR PLAN
A-107NORTHSCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"21-11-10
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE68'-4"4'-3"7'-11"196'-6"210'-0"1A4002A400RTUsROOF TOPEQUIPMENTSSHALL BEADEQUATELYSCREENED TYP.ROOF TOPEQUIPMENTSSHALL BEADEQUATELYSCREENED TYP.ROOF TOPEQUIPMENTSSHALL BEADEQUATELYSCREENED TYP.ROOF TOPEQUIPMENTSSHALL BEADEQUATELYSCREENED TYP.ROOF TOPEQUIPMENTSSHALL BEADEQUATELYSCREENED TYP.970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
ROOF PLAN
A-108NORTHSCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"21-11-10
UNIT TYPE 2A-1: 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :1,066 GSF (984 NET)DECK AREA : 75 SFUNIT TYPE 2A-1: 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :1,066 GSF (984 NET)DECK AREA : 75 SF765 SFWORK(72%)LIVE 301 SF(28%)UNIT TYPE 2A-2 : 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :1160 GSFDECK AREA : 87 SFUNIT TYPE 2A-2 : 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :1160 GSFDECK AREA : 87 SF829 SFWORK(71%)LIVE 331 SF(29%)2B-LUNIT TYPE 2B-L : 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :1163 GSFDECK AREA : 141 SF2B-LUNIT TYPE 2B-L : 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :1163 GSFDECK AREA : 141 SF830 SFWORK(71%)LIVE 333 SF(29%)UNIT TYPE 2C : 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :1235 GSFDECK AREA : 127 SFUNIT TYPE 2C : 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :1235 GSFDECK AREA : 127 SF926 SFWORK(75%)LIVE 309 SF(25%) 2DUNIT TYPE 2D : 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :1223 GSFDECK AREA : 220 SF 2D-1UNIT TYPE 2D-1 : 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :1173 GSFDECK AREA : 220 SF2EUNIT TYPE 2E : 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :922 GSFDECK AREA : 209 SF2FUNIT TYPE 2F : 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :995 GSFDECK AREA : 245 SFUNIT TYPE 2G : 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :1,041 GSF (960 NET)DECK AREA : 55 SFUNIT TYPE 2G : 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :1,041 GSF (960 NET)DECK AREA : 55 SF745 SFWORK(72%)LIVE 296 SF(28%) 2HUNIT TYPE 2H : 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :1,127 GSFDECK AREA : 209 SFUNIT TYPE 2BR-LOFT : 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :1,346 GSFPATIO AREA : 110 SFLAUNDRYUNIT TYPE 2BR-LOFT : 2 BEDROOM/ 2 BATHLIVING AREA :1,346 GSFPATIO AREA : 110 SFLAUNDRYLIVE 673 SF(50%)WORK 673 SF(50%)11'-7"6'-8"6'-8"11'-7"75 SF75 SF12'-8"6'-11"87 SF12'-8"6'-11"87 SF5'-0"12'-6"9'-4"12'-1"6'-0"141 SF5'-0"12'-6"9'-4"12'-1"6'-0"141 SF11'-11"11'-11"6'-4"8'-0"6'-4"127 SF11'-11"11'-11"6'-4"6'-4"127 SF37'-9"5'-10"220 SF5'-10"37'-9"220 SF34'-9"6'-0"209 SF6'-0"37'-9"245 SF5'-0"11'-2"55 SF5'-0"11'-2"37'-9"6'-0"55 SF209 SF5'-0"22'-0"
110 SF
5'-0"22'-0"110 SF
970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
UNIT PLAN
A-200
21-11-10
3BUNIT TYPE 3B : 3 BEDROOM/ 3 BATHLIVING AREA :1337 GSFDECK AREA : 146 SFUNIT TYPE 3A : 3 BEDROOM/ 3 BATHLIVING AREA :1442 GSFDECK AREA : 227 SFUNIT TYPE 3A : 3 BEDROOM/ 3 BATHLIVING AREA :1442 GSFDECK AREA : 227 SFUNIT TYPE 3AA : 3 BEDROOM/ 3 BATHLIVING AREA :1442 GSFDECK AREA : 227 SFLAUNDRYUNIT TYPE 3AA : 3 BEDROOM/ 3 BATHLIVING AREA :1442 GSFDECK AREA : 227 SFLAUNDRY981 SFWORK(69%)LIVE 450 SF(31%)981 SFWORK(69%)LIVE 450 SF(31%)3E-L1
3E-L2
UNIT TYPE 3E : 3 BEDROOM/ 3 BATHLIVING AREA :1,737 GSFDECK AREA : 209 SF 3DUNIT TYPE 3D : 3 BEDROOM/ 3 BATHLIVING AREA :1,227 GSFDECK AREA : 245 SF4AUNIT TYPE 4A: 4 BEDROOM/ 3 BATHLIVING AREA :1784 GSFDECK AREA : 150 SF 3BUNIT TYPE 3B : 3 BEDROOM/ 3 BATHLIVING AREA :1337 GSFDECK AREA : 146 SFLIVE 480 SF(36%)857 SFWORK(64%)UNIT TYPE 3C : 3 BEDROOM/ 3 BATHLIVING AREA :1494 GSFDECK AREA : 141 SFUNIT TYPE 3C : 3 BEDROOM/ 3 BATHLIVING AREA :1494 GSFDECK AREA : 141 SFLIVE 512 SF(34%)982 SFWORK(66%)6'-0"37'-9"6'-0"37'-9"6'-0"37'-9"6'-0"37'-9"227 SF227 SF227 SF227 SF6'-8"10'-5"10'-11"6'-8"10'-5"6'-8"10'-11"6'-8"6'-0"12'-1"5'-0"12'-6"9'-4"141 SF6'-0"12'-1"9'-4"12'-6"5'-0"141 SF6'-0"37'-8"6'-0"37'-8"40'-9"6'-0"11'-5"6'-8"10'-11"6'-8"6'-11"12'-8"
970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
UNIT PLAN
A-201
21-11-10
4'-6"1ST LEVEL0' - 0"2ND LEVEL14' - 0"3RD LEVEL25' - 0"4TH LEVEL35' - 0"5TH LEVEL45' - 0"6TH LEVEL55' - 0"7TH LEVEL65' - 0"ROOF LEVEL75' - 0"14'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"
75'-0"TOP ELEV/STAIR SHAFT4'-6"TOP OF PARAPET(79' - 6")3'-6"
4'-6"1ST LEVEL0' - 0"2ND LEVEL14' - 0"3RD LEVEL25' - 0"4TH LEVEL35' - 0"5TH LEVEL45' - 0"6TH LEVEL55' - 0"7TH LEVEL65' - 0"ROOF LEVEL75' - 0"14'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"
75'-0"TOP ELEV/STAIR SHAFT4'-6"TOP OF PARAPET(79' - 6")3'-6"
970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
ELEVATIONS
A-300 SOUTH ELEVATION2SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"EAST ELEVATION1SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"ABBFBICFEIEBBAFGFDDAABJAGKFMATERIAL LEGENDAEXTERIOR PLASTER - COLOR 1FGLASS RAILINGEALUMINUM STOREFRONT BRONZE ANODIZEDGTRELLIS SYSTEMHTRAVERTINE TILEISTEEL CANOPYDALUMINUM COMPOSITE SIDING (WOOD PANEL)BEXTERIOR PLASTER - COLOR 2CALUMINUM FIN SCREENJCONCRETEKCONCRETE MASONRY WALLLEXTERIOR LIGHT (WALL SCONCE)MMETAL SCREEN GATELLL21-11-10 M
4'-6"1ST LEVEL0' - 0"2ND LEVEL14' - 0"3RD LEVEL25' - 0"4TH LEVEL35' - 0"5TH LEVEL45' - 0"6TH LEVEL55' - 0"7TH LEVEL65' - 0"ROOF LEVEL75' - 0"14'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"
75'-0"TOP ELEV/STAIR SHAFT4'-6"TOP OF PARAPET(79' - 6")3'-6"
4'-6"1ST LEVEL0' - 0"2ND LEVEL14' - 0"3RD LEVEL25' - 0"4TH LEVEL35' - 0"5TH LEVEL45' - 0"6TH LEVEL55' - 0"7TH LEVEL65' - 0"ROOF LEVEL75' - 0"14'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"
75'-0"TOP ELEV/STAIR SHAFT4'-6"TOP OF PARAPET(79' - 6")3'-6"
970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
ELEVATIONS
A-301WEST ELEVATION1SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"NORTH ELEVATION2SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"MATERIAL LEGENDAEXTERIOR PLASTER - COLOR 1FGLASS RAILINGEALUMINUM STOREFRONT BRONZE ANODIZEDGTRELLIS SYSTEMHTRAVERTINE TILEISTEEL CANOPYDALUMINUM COMPOSITE SIDING (WOOD PANEL)BEXTERIOR PLASTER - COLOR 2CALUMINUM FIN SCREENJCONCRETEKCONCRETE MASONRY WALLABBCGAGBKHJFACABBAFGHHIEHIEDELEXTERIOR LIGHT (WALL SCONCE)LLLLL21-11-10
970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
RENDERING
A-310 VIEW FROM CORNER OF GARVEY AVE AND PROSPECT AVE21-11-10
970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
RENDERING
A-311 VIEW ALONG GARVEY AVE.21-11-10
970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
RENDERING
A-312 VIEW ALONG PROSPECT AVE.21-11-10
970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
RENDERING
A-313 SOUTH ELEVATION/ VIEW ALONG GARVEY AVE21-11-10
1ST LEVEL0' - 0"2ND LEVEL14' - 0"3RD LEVEL25' - 0"4TH LEVEL35' - 0"5TH LEVEL45' - 0"6TH LEVEL55' - 0"7TH LEVEL65' - 0"ROOF LEVEL75' - 0"87654321ELEVATOR/STAIR SHAFTELEVLOBBYRESIDENTIAL-UNITRESIDENTIAL-UNITRESIDENTIAL-UNITRESIDENTIAL-UNITRESIDENTIAL-UNITRESIDENTIAL-UNITRESIDENTIAL-UNIT2 STORYLIVE/WORK33'-1"39'-5"45'-2"51'-0"56'-10"62'-6"68'-4"RESIDENTIAL-UNITRESIDENTIAL-UNITRESIDENTIAL-UNITPROPERTY LINE
2 STORYLIVE/WORK2 STORYLIVE/WORK2 STORYLIVE/WORKGARVEY AVE.ELEVLOBBYELEVLOBBYELEVLOBBYELEVLOBBYELEVLOBBYELEVLOBBYRESIDENTIAL-UNITRETAIL AREA25'-0"60°PROPERTY LINE
5'-0"
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINEPROSPECT AVE.COURTYARDCABDEFGI2 STORYLIVE/WORKPARKINGPARKINGPARKINGPARKINGRETAIL AREARESIDENTIAL-UNITRESIDENTIAL-UNITRESIDENTIAL-UNITRESIDENTIAL-UNITRESIDENTIAL-UNITRESIDENTIAL-UNITRESIDENTIAL-UNITRESIDENTIAL-UNITRESIDENTIAL-UNITRAMP1ST LEVEL0' - 0"2ND LEVEL14' - 0"3RD LEVEL25' - 0"4TH LEVEL35' - 0"5TH LEVEL45' - 0"6TH LEVEL55' - 0"7TH LEVEL65' - 0"ROOF LEVEL75' - 0"970 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 107
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
p. 213.537.0910 info@scaleslab.com www.scaleslab.com
PROSPECT VILLA MIXED-USE
DATE:
SHEET:
DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPER: DEL MAR PROPERTY LLC.
7539-7545 GARVEY AVE.
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
SCHEMATIC SECTION
A-400 SECTION B2SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0"SECTION A1SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0"21-11-10