PC - Item 3B - Exhibit F - Mission Villas MNDMission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MISSION VILLAS
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
December 2022
Lead Agency:
City of Rosemead
8838 Valley Blvd
Rosemead, CA 91770
Contact Person and Phone Number: Annie Lao, (626) 569-2144
Project Applicant:
Borstein Enterprises
8951 Research Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
2355 Main Street, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92614
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
i
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ii
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY ................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ..................................................................................................................... 2
2 PROJECT SETTING ............................................................................................................. 3
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 EXISTING PROJECT SITE ................................................................................................................................ 3
2.3 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS .................................................................. 3
2.4 SURROUNDING LAND USE, GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ................................. 3
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 15
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ......................................................................................... 19
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ....................................................................... 19
4.2 DETERMINATION ......................................................................................................................................... 20
4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST QUESTIONS ....................................................................................... 22
1. AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................................................................ 22
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 27
3. AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................................................................... 30
4.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................. 37
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................... 42
6. ENERGY .............................................................................................................................................................. 46
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................................................... 51
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................................................... 57
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................................................... 61
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY........................................................................................................ 66
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING ......................................................................................................................... 72
12. MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................... 75
13. NOISE ............................................................................................................................................................... 76
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................................................... 90
15. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................ 92
16. RECREATION ................................................................................................................................................... 96
17. TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................................................................ 98
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................. 103
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................. 106
20. WILDFIRES ..................................................................................................................................................... 112
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................................................... 114
5 GENERAL REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 118
6 DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ............................................................ 119
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
iii
Figures
Figure 1: Regional Location ................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Local Vicinity ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 3: Aerial View .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 4a: Site Photos .......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 4b: Site Photos .......................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 5: Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 6a: Plan 1 Exterior Elevations Spanish Colonial ................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 6b: Plan 1 Exterior Elevations Hacienda ............................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 6c: Plan 2 Exterior Elevations Spanish Colonial ................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 6d: Plan 2 Exterior Elevations Hacienda ............................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 6e: Duplex Exterior Elevations Spanish Colonial ............................................................................................................... 29
Figure 6f: Duplex Exterior Elevations Hacienda ............................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 7: Conceptual Landscape Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 8: Wall and Fence Plan .......................................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 9: Noise Measurement Locations ........................................................................................................................................... 99
Tables
Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds ...................................................................................................... 31
Table AQ-2: Regional Construction Emissions Summary ............................................................................................................... 32
Table AQ-3: Summary of Regional Operational Emissions ......................................................................................................... 33
Table AQ-4: Localized Construction Emissions ................................................................................................................................ 33
Table Bio-1: Potentially Occurring Plant Species .......................................................................................................................... 38
Table Bio-2: Potentially Occurring Animal Species ....................................................................................................................... 38
Table N-1: Municipal Code Exterior Permitted Noise Levels ...................................................................................................... 77
Table N-2: Municipal Code Exterior Permitted Noise Levels ...................................................................................................... 79
Table N-3: Municipal Code Exterior Permitted Noise Levels ...................................................................................................... 79
Table N-4: Interpretation of Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis ..................................................................................... 79
Table N-5: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria .................................................................................................................... 79
Table N-6: Summary of 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements .................................................................................... 81
Table N-7: Construction Activity Noise Levels at 50 Feet ............................................................................................................ 85
Table N-8: Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Sensitive Receptors ............................................................................... 86
Table N-9: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment at 25 Feet ........................................................................... 87
Table PS-1: School Capacity and Project Generated Students ................................................................................................. 94
Table TR-1: Proposed Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................ 100
Table UT-1: District Supply Reliability – Average, Single Dry Year, & Multiple Dry Years ............................................. 108
Appendix
A Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis
B General Biological Assessment
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Cultural Resources Assessment
Preliminary Geotechincal Investigation
Paleontological Assessment
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Remedial Excavation Completion Report
Preliminary Hydrology Study
Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan (LID)
Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis
Sewer Will Serve Letter
M Sewer Area Study
N MMRP
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") has been prepared in accordance
with the following:
•California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code Sections
21000 et seq.); and
•California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (State CEQA Guidelines,
Sections 15000 et seq.).
Pursuant to CEQA, this IS/MND has been prepared to analyze the potential for significant impacts
on the environment resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. As required by State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, this Initial Study is a preliminary analysis prepared by the Lead
Agency, the City of Rosemead, in consultation with other jurisdictional agencies, to determine if a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for the
Project.
This IS/MND informs City of Rosemead decision-makers, affected agencies, and the public of
potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Project. A
“significant effect” or “significant impact” on the environment means “a substantial, or potentially
substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the Project”
(Guidelines §15382). As such, the IS/MND’s intent is to adhere to the following CEQA principles:
•Provide meaningful early evaluation of site planning constraints, service and infrastructure
requirements, and other local and regional environmental considerations. (Pub. Res. Code
§21003.1)
•Encourage the applicant to incorporate environmental considerations into Project
conceptualization, design, and planning at the earliest feasible time. (State CEQA
Guidelines §15004[b][3])
•Specify mitigation measures for reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects
and commit Rosemead and the applicant to future measures containing performance
standards to ensure their adequacy when detailed development plans and applications are
submitted. (State CEQA Guidelines §15126.4)
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)
Throughout the impact analysis in this Initial Study, reference is made to requirements that are
applied to all development on the basis of federal, state, or local law, and Existing Plans, Programs,
or Policies currently in place which effectively reduce environmental impacts. Existing Plans,
Programs, or Policies are collectively identified in this document as PPPs. Where applicable, PPPs
are listed to show their effect in reducing potential environmental impacts. Where the application
of these measures does not reduce an impact to below a level of significance, a Project-specific
mitigation measure is introduced.
Chapter 1. Public Review MND
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2
1.2 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This IS/MND includes the flowing sections:
Section 1.0 Introduction
Provides information about CEQA and its requirements for environmental review and explains that
an Initial Study/MND was prepared by the City of Rosemead to evaluate the proposed Project’s
potential to impact the physical environment.
Section 2.0 Project Setting
Provides information about the proposed Project’s location.
Section 3.0 Project Description
Includes a description of the proposed Project’s physical features and construction and operational
characteristics. Also includes a list of discretionary approvals that would be required by the
proposed Project.
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
Includes the Environmental Checklist and evaluates the proposed Project’s potential to result in
significant adverse effects to the physical environment.
Section 5.0 General References
Includes a list of general reference materials relied on in the IS/MND. Each subtopic in Section 4.0
also contains a more specific list of reference materials relied on in the topical analysis.
Section 6.0 Document Preparers and Contributors
Includes the persons that prepared this IS/MND.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3
2 PROJECT SETTING
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The 3.435-acre Project site is located in the northwest portion of the City of Rosemead at 8601
Mission Drive. The site is located within Section 18, Township 1 South, Range 12 West as shown on
the El Monte, California 7.5-minute U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) topographic maps. The regional
location of the Project site is shown in Figure 1, Regional Location.
The Project site consists of three parcels, identified by the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
(APNs): 5389-009-029, -030, and -031. The Project site is bounded by Mission Drive to the south,
a vacant parcel and a nursery to the west, and residential uses to the east and north. Regional
access to the Project site is provided by Interstate 10 (I-10) and Interstate State Route 19 (SR-19).
Local access to the Project site is provided by Mission Drive and Walnut Grove Avenue. The Project
vicinity and surrounding area is shown in Figure 2, Local Vicinity.
2.2 EXISTING PROJECT SITE
The Project site is comprised of three parcels encompassing approximately 3.435 gross acres
(3.378 net acres) of land. The site is generally flat with elevations ranging from approximately
357 to 363 feet above mean sea level. The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped with
some groundcover and onsite improvements. Portions of concrete driveways exist at the west and
south of the site. The perimeters of the site are bound by chain-link fencing, masonry block walls,
and plastic fencing. There are palm trees present along the northwest property boundary.
Additionally, overhead power lines exist along the southwest boundary of the site. Existing
conditions of the Project site and adjacent uses are shown in Figure 3, Aerial View and Figure 4, Site
Photos.
2.3 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential and a zoning
designation of R-1 Single Family Residential. The Low Density Residential designation is
characterized by low-density residential neighborhoods consisting primarily of detached single-
family dwellings on individual lots. The maximum permitted density within the Low Density
Residential designation is 7.0 dwelling units per acre. The R-1 zoning district identifies areas
characterized by single-family dwellings.
2.4 SURROUNDING LAND USE, GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The Project site is located within a developed, urbanized area within the City of Rosemead as
described below:
Table 1: Surrounding Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations
Existing Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning Designation
North Single Family Residences Low Density Residential R-1- Single Family
Residential
East Single Family Residences Low Density Residential R-1- Single Family
Residential
South Mission Drive followed by
Single Family Residences Low Density Residential R-1- Single Family
Residential
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4
West Open space Public Facilities O-S - Open Space
Figure 18601 Mission Drive
City of Rosemead
Regional Location
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
6
This page intentionally left blank.
Local Vicinity
Figure 28601 Mission Drive
City of Rosemead
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
8
This page intentionally left blank.
Aerial View
Figure 38601 Mission Drive
City of Rosemead
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
10
This page intentionally left blank.
Site Photos
Figure 4a8601 Mission Drive
City of Rosemead
View from the west side of the site off of Walnut Grove Ave.
Southwest corner of site from the intersecton of Walnut Grove Ave and Mission Dr.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
12
This page intentionally left blank.
Site Photos
Figure 4b8601 Mission Drive
City of Rosemead
Southeast corner of site from Mission Dr.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
15
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Project would develop the approximately 3.435-acre Project site with 37 two-story
dwelling units. The residential community would include parking, landscaping, common areas, and
associated infrastructure. The Project also requires approval of a General Plan amendment from
Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; a zone change from R-1 Single Family
Residential to P-D Planned Development; and a tentative parcel map. Figure 5, Conceptual Site
Plan illustrated the Project as proposed.
3.2 PROJECT FEATURES
Development Summary
The proposed Project would construct 37 two-story dwelling units on the 3.37-acre parcel, which
would result in a density of 11 units per acre. The units would range in size from 1,546 square feet
(SF) to 2,553 SF and include two different single-family dwelling (SFD) plan options and two
different duplex plan options. Lots 14-32 would include backyard patios. The Project would include
4 affordable duplex units. Table 2 provides a summary of the proposed residential plans.
Table 2: Proposed Residence Plan Options
Unit Type
Square
Footage
Number of
Bedrooms Number of
Units
SFD Plan 1 2,351 4 14
SFD Plan 2 2,553 4 15
Duplex Plan 1 1,546 3 4
Duplex Plan 2 1,868 4 4
Total --- 37
Architectural Design
The proposed two-story residences would be designed with traditional architectural elements, multi-
level rooflines, and an earth tone color scheme. The residences would incorporate stucco finishes,
stone accents, decorative ceramic tiles, tiled roofs, painted shutters and decorative windows and
doors in the exterior design. The tallest roofline of the proposed residences would be
approximately 28 feet in height. Figures 6a-f, Exterior Elevations, illustrates the proposed exterior
elevations.
Recreation and Open Space
The Project would include approximately 17,298 SF of common open space that would be provided
in a central recreational area on the site. The central community open space area would include a
fire pit, seating, and an artificial turf area. Each residential unit would have a minimum of 390 SF
of private open space.
Lighting
Outdoor lighting included as part of future development on the Project site would be typical of
residential uses and would consist of wall-mounted lighting as well as pole-mounted lights along the
proposed internal roadways. Nighttime lighting would be used as accent/security lighting in the
recreation areas. All of the Project’s outdoor lighting would be directed downward and shielded to
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
16
minimize offsite spill. The location of all exterior lighting would comply with lighting standards
established in the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 17.88).
Access and Circulation
Access to the Project site would be provided via one 40-foot-wide driveway on Mission Drive. A
20-foot-wide drive aisle would provide internal circulation throughout the Project site and access
to garages and onsite parking. Pedestrian sidewalks would be installed to circulate the site and
connect to the existing right of way along Mission Drive.
Parking
The Project would include a total of 99 automobile parking spaces. Each residential unit includes an
attached, covered 2 car garage (74 spaces). An additional 25 uncovered guest parking spaces
and 2 bicycle parking spaces are proposed throughout the Project site.
Landscaping
Landscaping proposed as part of the Project would consist of ornamental trees, shrubs, and
groundcovers throughout the common areas of the development, such as along roadways, common
walls, and the recreation areas. In addition, street trees would be installed along the proposed
sidewalks throughout the Project site. The roadway entrance to the Project site would have a
landscaped median and decorative landscaping to enhance the entrance to the residential
neighborhood. Figure 7, Conceptual Landscape Plan, illustrates the proposed landscaping. The
landscape plan would be consistent with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Requirements
(Chapter 13.08).
Fences and Walls
The Project proposes to construct a 6-foot-high split-face concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall along
the perimeter of the site. The Project also proposes to construct 6-foot-high vinyl privacy fencing in
between each residential unit. The Project also proposes to construct 5-foot-high metal fences on
the east and west sides of the Project’s entrance. Figure 8, Wall and Fence Plan, illustrates the
proposed walls and fences.
Infrastructure Improvements
Water
The Project would install new onsite potable water lines that would connect to existing 6-inch water
lines in Mission Drive.
Sewer
The Project would also construct onsite sewer lines that would connect to the existing 8-inch sewer
line in Mission Drive.
Drainage
The Project would install new storm drain lines throughout the site. Additionally, the Project would
install catch basins throughout the site and an underground detention system in the southern portion
of the site to collect stormwater. Additionally, multiple planter boxes would be installed for further
stormwater infiltration.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
17
3.3 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
The Project proposes a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Low
Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The Medium Density Residential designation
allows for densities of up to 12 units per acre.
The Project also proposes a zone change from R-1 Single Family Residential to P-D Planned
Development. The P-D zone allows for residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses
subject to regulations set forth in Section 17.24 of the Municipal Code. A zone change to a P-D
zone requires Planned Development Review, with approval of a Precise Development Plan by the
Planning Commission and City Council.
3.4 CONSTRUCTION
Construction activities for the Project would occur over two phases lasting approximately 11 months
and in the following stages: (1) grading and excavation; (2) site preparation, which includes
clearing any remaining infrastructure, utilities, and trenching for the new utilities and services; (3)
building construction; and (4) landscape installation, paving, and application of architectural
coatings. Grading would begin in March 2023 and construction would end in June 2024. The Project
would open in October 2024. Construction activities would be limited to the hours between 7:00
a.m. and 8:00 p.m., excluding Sundays and holidays, as pursuant to the City’s requirements for
noise control (Chapter 8.36)
3.5 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS AND PERMITS
The following discretionary approvals and permits are anticipated from the City of Rosemead to
be necessary for implementation of the proposed Project:
• Tentative Tract Map
• Zone Change
• General Plan Amendment
• Planned Development Review, approval of Precise Development Plan
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
18
This page intentionally left blank
8601 Mission DriveCity of RosemeadFigure 5Conceptual Site Plan1 2345
6
7
8MAIL
9
10
1112
13
20 21
22 23
24 251415
16
17
18
1938.29'42.62'26.17'26.17'32.67'32.67'26.17'26.17'33.48'26.17'26.17'32.67'32.67'26.17'26.17'38.35'76.50'
86.00'
76.62'
86.14'S89°55
'4
0"W
1
74
.1
1'
S00°56'10"E 542.70'
N00°19'33"W 254.20'
N28°55'42"
E
3
8
9
.
3
7
'S64°18'32"E 250.37'
S20°14'36"W
1
6
9
.
6
3
'N89°08
'21
"E
8
6.
93
'
20.0
14.0
8.00
15.00
15.30
17.2313.2313.76
20.0024.00
13.00
20.00
14.01
8.00
20.00
20.73
18.00
10.00
11.50
30.00
9.0
18.0
9.0
18.08.0020.00
5TYP5TYP
19.15
6.0 20.00 38.0013.0013.0020.00
24.0
0 20.0
0TYP12.1710.1714.6911.0020.00 3TYP
3TYP
21.0
10.08.013.0512.03MM SBE PAR 1 MAP 148-19
-52D
SBEPAR 2 MAP
148-19-52D 2PTSSO CALIF ED
ISON
CONO SITUSAPN: 5389-005-800QUYEN Y TO4629 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389
-009
-042
JOANNE TRINH8600 ZERELDA STAPN: 5389-009-047
MANDY TA8606 ZERELDA STAPN: 5389-009-048
DAVID K IKARI/DENNIS S IKARI8612 ZERELDA STAPN: 5389-009-049
JI HWAN LEE/EUN JOO LEE8620 ZERELDA STAPN: 5389-009-043
MIKE
B TO/TR
ITIA
TO4623 BARTLETT
AVEAPN: 5389
-009
-041WILLIAM
J STONECYPHER
JR4617 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-040CARLOS VILLAGRAN
/KAREN VIL
LAGRAN4613 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-039FENGYI J
S
ITU/TRACY F
SITU4607 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009
-038NGO &
BANH FAMILY
TRUSTNGO ALEXANDER D
TR4603 BARTLETT
AVEAPN: 5389-009-037
JASON SAM
/FRAUST
INA
SAM4549 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-036
LA
IRD ANDERSON/DONNA B ANDERSON4545 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-035BRYANT M TANG4539 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-034LENK TRUSTLENK JANET
M
TR4535 BARTLETT
AVEAPN: 5389
-009-033KOKICHI NAKAZAWA
/SUMIE NAKAZAWA4529 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-032SANDY H WU8639 MISSION DRAPN: 5389-009-026DE HONG8637 MISSION DRAPN: 5389-009-028DUBOIS FAMILY TRUSTDUBOIS WAYNE A &DOROTHY A TRS8635 MISSION DRAPN: 5389-009-02740
40
80
32
32
8
8
6.0
16.0
DU5DU9DU7DU10DU11DU12DU13DU14DU15DU16DU17DU20DU21DU22DU23DU32DU33DU31DU34DU35DU24DU25DU26DU27DU28DU29DU30DU18DU19DU1DU2DU3DU6DU4DU8DU36DU37L01
L02
L03TYP
L05
L06
L07TYP
L08TYP L04TYPC01C02
C02
C02
L05
P01TYP
W01TYP
A0.1.1VALENCIA CALIFORNIA 91354949 939 1310www.architeyk.comA P P L ICA N TP RO JECTDRAW INGSDATESHEET NO.JOB NO.A RCH I T E Y K29222 DAKOTA DRIVELICENSEDARCHITECTC-31873STATEOFCALIFORNIAREN.10-31-23EVERITT KANG8601-8623 MISSION DRIVEROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIABE-21-00122051611766 WILSHIRE BOULEVARDSUITE 820LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025310.582.1991BORSTEIN ENTERPRISESN500100150ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN &PROJECT STATISTICSARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANSFDPLAN 12,351 sfSPANISHCOLONIALHACIENDASFDPLAN 22,553 sf"DUPLEX"PLAN 11,546 sf"DUPLEX"PLAN 21,868 sfVICINITY MAPPROJECT SUMMARY:·OWNER / APPLICANT:BORSTEIN ENTERPRISES, INC.11766 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 820LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025·CONTACT:ERIK PFAHLERerik@borsteinenterprises.com310.582.1991 x203·APN:5389-009-029, 030, 031·ZONING:··CURRENT:R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL··PROPOSED:P-D·GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION··EXISTING:LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL··PROPOSED:MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL·PROJECT SIZE:··GROSS SF:3.435 AC (149,929 SF)··NET SF:3.378 AC (147,146 SF)·LOT SIZE / F.A.R. / LOT COVERAGE:··LOT 1 (DU 9-37) : 127,151 SF / 67.1% / 43.0%··LOT 2 (DU 4):3,089 SF / 76.8% / 39.5%··LOT 3 (DU 3):2,250 SF / 90.7% / 48.0%··LOT 4 (DU 2):2,250 SF / 90.7% / 48.0%··LOT 5 (DU 1):2,809 SF / 84.5% / 43.5%··LOT 6 (DU 5):3,095 SF / 76.7% / 39.5%··LOT 7 (DU 6):2,002 SF / 102.0% / 54.0%··LOT 8 (DU 7):2,002 SF / 102.0% / 54.0%··LOT 9 (DU 8):2,499 SF / 95.0% / 48.9%·TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLNG UNITS:37 DU··SFD PLAN 1:14 DU··SFD PLAN 2:15 DU··DUPLEX PLAN 1:4 DU··DUPLEX PLAN 2:4 DU·DENSITY:10.95 DU/AC• OPEN SPACE AREA: 17,298 SF / 11.8% WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS·PARKING:··GARAGE:74 SPACES··GUEST:25 SPACES··BICYCLE:2 SPACES·BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE VB·OCCUPANCY:R-3 SFD/DUPLEX (CRC)·PRIVATE OPEN SPACE:VARIES: MIN. 390 SF / DU ACHIEVED·SCHOOL DISTRICT:ROSEMEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT3907 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD #220ROSEMEAD, CA 91770626.312.2900·ELECTRICAL SERVICE:SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISONP.O. BOX 6400RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91729800.655.4555·GAS SERVICE:SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANYP.O. BOX CMONTEREY PARK, CA 91756800.427.2200·WATER SERVICE:CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY8657 GRAND AVENUEROSEMEAD, CA 91770626.614.2500REFER TO CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.SITE PLAN LEGENDFIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICULAR ACCESSFIRE HYDRANT (3 PROPOSED)BICYCLE RACK
(2 SPACES)CENTRAL COMMON OPEN SPACE1,644
TOT. SF
/
1
.1%
W
ITH
IN
PROJECT
LIM
ITSSURFACING
: TURFOTHER COMMON OPEN SPACE15,654
TOT
. SF
/ 10
.6%
WITH
IN
PROJECT L
IM
ITSSURFACING
: COMMON AREA
LANDSCAP
INGTOTAL OPEN SPACE17,298
TOT
. SF
/ 11
.8%
WITH
IN
PROJECT L
IM
ITSREAR YARD AREAS34,359
TOT
. SF
/ 23
.4% WITH
IN
PROJECT L
IM
ITSCITY PARKWAY LANDSCAPE489 TOT. SF
/ 0.3
%
W
ITH
IN
PROJECT
LIM
ITSSURFACING
: PARKWAY
LANDSCAP
INGTOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA51,470
TOT
. SF
/ 34
.5% WITH
IN
PROJECT L
IM
ITSR.O.W. HARDSCAPE1,383
TOT. SF
/
0
.9%
W
ITH
IN
PROJECT
LIM
ITSSURFACING
: NATURAL COLORED
CONCRETEDRIVE AISLE HARDSCAPE30,810
TOT
. SF
/ 20
.9% OF
PROJECTSURFACING
: NATURAL COLORED
CONCRETEHARDSCAPE (SIDEWALKS)9,578
TOT. SF
/ 6
.5%
WITH
IN
PROJECT L
IM
ITSSURFACING
: NATURAL COLORED
CONCRETETOTAL HARDSCAPE AREA40,388
TOT
. SF
/ 27
.1% WITH
IN
PROJECT L
IM
ITS6ft HIGH SPLIT-FACE CUM WALL
w/ 4inHIGH SPLIT-FACE CUM CAPPARKING STALLS TO BE STRIPED PERCITY MUN
ICIPAL CODE SECT
ION17.112.111HTRASH COLLECTION BIN LOCATION PERREPUBLIC SERVICES WILL SERVELETTERC01C02L01L02L03L04L05L06L07L08L09P01W01DWELLING UNIT LEGENDSPANISHCOLONIALHACIENDA12 34 56 78MAIL 9 101112132021 22 23242514151617181938.29'42.62'26.17'26.17'32.67'32.67'26.17'26.17'33.48'26.17'26.17'32.67'32.67'26.17'26.17'38.35'76.50'86.00'76.62'86.14'S89°55'40"W 174.11'S00°56'10"E 542.70'N00°19'33"W 254.20'N28°55'42"E 389.37'S64°18'32"E 250.37'S20°14'36"W 169.63'N89°08'21"E 86.93'20.014.0 8.0015.0015.3017.2313.2313.7620.0024.0013.0020.0014.01 8.0020.00 20.7318.0010.00 11.5030.00 9.018.09.018.08.0020.005TYP5TYP 19.156.0 20.00 38.0013.0013.0020.0024.00 20.00TYP12.1710.1714.6911.0020.00 3TYP3TYP21.0 10.08.013.0512.03MMSBE PAR 1 MAP 148-19-52D SBEPAR 2 MAP 148-19-52D 2PTSSO CALIF EDISON CONO SITUSAPN: 5389-005-800QUYEN Y TO4629 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-042JOANNE TRINH8600 ZERELDA STAPN: 5389-009-047MANDY TA8606 ZERELDA STAPN: 5389-009-048DAVID K IKARI/DENNIS S IKARI8612 ZERELDA STAPN: 5389-009-049JI HWAN LEE/EUN JOO LEE8620 ZERELDA STAPN: 5389-009-043MIKE B TO/TRITIA TO4623 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-041WILLIAM J STONECYPHER JR4617 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-040CARLOS VILLAGRAN/KAREN VILLAGRAN4613 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-039FENGYI J SITU/TRACY F SITU4607 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-038NGO & BANH FAMILY TRUSTNGO ALEXANDER D TR4603 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-037JASON SAM/FRAUSTINA SAM4549 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-036LAIRD ANDERSON/DONNA B ANDERSON4545 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-035BRYANT M TANG4539 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-034LENK TRUSTLENK JANET M TR4535 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-033KOKICHI NAKAZAWA/SUMIE NAKAZAWA4529 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-032SANDY H WU8639 MISSION DRAPN: 5389-009-026DE HONG8637 MISSION DRAPN: 5389-009-028DUBOIS FAMILY TRUSTDUBOIS WAYNE A &DOROTHY A TRS8635 MISSION DRAPN: 5389-009-0274040803232886.016.0 DU5DU9DU7DU10DU11DU12DU13DU14DU15DU16DU17DU20DU21DU22DU23DU32DU33DU31DU34DU35DU24DU25DU26DU27DU28DU29DU30DU18DU19DU1DU2DU3DU6DU4DU8DU36DU37L01 L02L03TYPL05L06 L07TYPL08TYP L04TYPC01C02C02 C02L05P01TYPW01TYP
A0.1.1VALENCIA CALIFORNIA 91354949 939 1310www.architeyk.comA P P L ICA N TP RO JECTDRAW INGSDATESHEET NO.JOB NO.A RCH I T E Y K29222 DAKOTA DRIVELICENSEDARCHITECTC-31873STATEOFCALIFORNIAREN.10-31-23EVERITT KANG8601-8623 MISSION DRIVEROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIABE-21-00122051611766 WILSHIRE BOULEVARDSUITE 820LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025310.582.1991BORSTEIN ENTERPRISESN500100150ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN &PROJECT STATISTICSARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANSFDPLAN 12,351 sfSPANISHCOLONIALHACIENDASFDPLAN 22,553 sf"DUPLEX"PLAN 11,546 sf"DUPLEX"PLAN 21,868 sfVICINITY MAPPROJECT SUMMARY:·OWNER / APPLICANT:BORSTEIN ENTERPRISES, INC.11766 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 820LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025·CONTACT:ERIK PFAHLERerik@borsteinenterprises.com310.582.1991 x203·APN:5389-009-029, 030, 031·ZONING:··CURRENT:R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL··PROPOSED:P-D·GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION··EXISTING:LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL··PROPOSED:MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL·PROJECT SIZE:··GROSS SF:3.435 AC (149,929 SF)··NET SF:3.378 AC (147,146 SF)·LOT SIZE / F.A.R. / LOT COVERAGE:··LOT 1 (DU 9-37) : 127,151 SF / 67.1% / 43.0%··LOT 2 (DU 4):3,089 SF / 76.8% / 39.5%··LOT 3 (DU 3):2,250 SF / 90.7% / 48.0%··LOT 4 (DU 2):2,250 SF / 90.7% / 48.0%··LOT 5 (DU 1):2,809 SF / 84.5% / 43.5%··LOT 6 (DU 5):3,095 SF / 76.7% / 39.5%··LOT 7 (DU 6):2,002 SF / 102.0% / 54.0%··LOT 8 (DU 7):2,002 SF / 102.0% / 54.0%··LOT 9 (DU 8):2,499 SF / 95.0% / 48.9%·TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLNG UNITS:37 DU··SFD PLAN 1:14 DU··SFD PLAN 2:15 DU··DUPLEX PLAN 1:4 DU··DUPLEX PLAN 2:4 DU·DENSITY:10.95 DU/AC• OPEN SPACE AREA: 17,298 SF / 11.8% WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS·PARKING:··GARAGE:74 SPACES··GUEST:25 SPACES··BICYCLE:2 SPACES·BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE VB·OCCUPANCY:R-3 SFD/DUPLEX (CRC)·PRIVATE OPEN SPACE:VARIES: MIN. 390 SF / DU ACHIEVED·SCHOOL DISTRICT:ROSEMEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT3907 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD #220ROSEMEAD, CA 91770626.312.2900·ELECTRICAL SERVICE:SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISONP.O. BOX 6400RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91729800.655.4555·GAS SERVICE:SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANYP.O. BOX CMONTEREY PARK, CA 91756800.427.2200·WATER SERVICE:CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY8657 GRAND AVENUEROSEMEAD, CA 91770626.614.2500REFER TO CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.SITE PLAN LEGENDFIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICULAR ACCESSFIRE HYDRANT (3 PROPOSED)BICYCLE RACK (2 SPACES)CENTRAL COMMON OPEN SPACE1,644 TOT.
SF
/ 1.1% W
ITH
IN PROJECT
L
IMITSSURFACING: TURFOTHER COMMON OPEN SPACE15,654 TOT. SF /
10.6%
WITHIN PROJECT LIM
ITSSURFACING: COMMON AREA LANDSCAP
INGTOTAL OPEN SPACE17,298 TOT. SF /
11.8%
WITHIN PROJECT LIM
ITSREAR YARD AREAS34,359 TOT
. SF /
23.4%
WITHIN
PROJECT LIM
ITSCITY PARKWAY LANDSCAPE489 TOT. SF / 0.3 %
WITH
IN
PROJECT
LIM
ITSSURFACING: PARKWAY LANDSCAP
INGTOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA51,470 TOT
. SF /
34.5%
WITHIN
PROJECT LIM
ITSR.O.W. HARDSCAPE1,383 TOT.
SF
/ 0.9% W
ITH
IN PROJECT
L
IMITSSURFACING: NATURAL
COLORED
CONCRETEDRIVE AISLE HARDSCAPE30,810 TOT
. SF /
20.9%
OF PROJECTSURFACING: NATURAL
COLORED
CONCRETEHARDSCAPE (SIDEWALKS)9,578 TOT. SF
/ 6.5% W
ITHIN PROJECT
L
IMITSSURFACING: NATURAL
COLORED
CONCRETETOTAL HARDSCAPE AREA40,388 TOT
. SF /
27.1%
WITHIN
PROJECT LIM
ITS6ft HIGH SPLIT-FACE CUM WALL w/ 4inHIGH SPLIT-FACE CUM CAPPARKING STALLS TO BE STRIPED PERCITY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION17.112.111HTRASH COLLECTION BIN LOCATION PERREPUBLIC SERVICES WILL SERVELETTERC01C02L01L02L03L04L05L06L07L08L09P01W01DWELLING UNIT LEGENDSPANISHCOLONIALHACIENDA1 23 456 78
MAIL
9 10111213
20 21 22 23
24 2514151617181938.29'42.62'26.17'26.17'32.67'32.67'26.17'26.17'33.48'26.17'26.17'32.67'32.67'26.17'26.17'38.35'76.50'86.00'76.62'86.14'
S89
°55
'4
0"W
174
.1
1'
S00°56'10"E 542.70'
N00°19'33"W 254.20'N28°55'42"E 389.37'S64°18'32"E 250.37'S20°14'36"W
1
6
9
.
6
3
'N89°
08
'21
"E
86
.9
3'
20.014.0
8.00
15.00
15.
30
17.2313.2313.76
20.0024.0013.0
0
20.00 14.01
8.00
20.00
20.7318.0010.00 11.5030.00
9.0
18.0
9.018.08.0020.00
5TYP5TYP
19.15
6.0 20.00 38.0013.0013.0020.0024.00 20.00TYP12.1710.1714.6911.0020.00 3TYP3TYP21.0 10.08.013.0512.03MMSBE PAR 1 MAP 148-19-52D SBEPAR 2 MAP 148-19-52D 2PTSSO CALIF EDISON CONO SITUSAPN: 5389-005-800QUYEN Y
TO4629 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389
-009-042
JOANNE TRINH8600 ZERELDA STAPN: 5389-009-047
MANDY TA8606 ZERELDA STAPN: 5389-009-048
DAVID K IKARI/DENNIS S IKARI8612 ZERELDA STAPN: 5389-009-049
JI HWAN LEE/EUN JOO LEE8620 ZERELDA STAPN: 5389-009-043
MIKE
B TO/TRIT
IA
TO4623 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-041WILLIAM
J STONECYPHER
JR4617 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-040CARLOS VILLAGRAN/KAREN VILLAGRAN4613 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-039FENGYI J SITU/TRACY
F SITU4607 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389
-009-038NGO & BANH
FAMILY TRUSTNGO ALEXANDER D TR4603 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-037JASON SAM/FRAUSTINA SAM4549 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-036LAIRD
ANDERSON
/DONNA B ANDERSON4545 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389
-009-035BRYANT M TANG4539 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-034LENK TRUSTLENK JANET M
TR4535 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-033KOKICHI NAKAZAWA/SUMIE NAKAZAWA4529 BARTLETT AVEAPN: 5389-009-032SANDY H WU8639 MISSION DRAPN: 5389-009-026DE HONG8637 MISSION DRAPN: 5389-009-028DUBOIS FAMILY TRUSTDUBOIS WAYNE A &DOROTHY A TRS8635 MISSION DRAPN: 5389-009-0274040803232 88 6.016.0 DU5DU9DU7DU10DU11DU12DU13DU14DU15DU16DU17DU20DU21DU22DU23DU32DU33DU31DU34DU35DU24DU25DU26DU27DU28DU29DU30DU18DU19DU1DU2DU3DU6DU4DU8DU36DU37L01L02
L03TYPL05L06
L07TYP
L08TYP
L04TYPC01C02C02
C02L05P01TYPW01TYP
A0.1.1VALENCIA CALIFORNIA 91354949 939 1310www.architeyk.comA P P L ICA N TP RO JECTDRAW INGSDATESHEET NO.JOB NO.A RCH I T E Y K29222 DAKOTA DRIVELICENSEDARCHITECTC-31873STATEOFCALIFORNIAREN.10-31-23 EVERITT KANG8601-8623 MISSION DRIVEROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIABE-21-00122051611766 WILSHIRE BOULEVARDSUITE 820LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025310.582.1991BORSTEIN ENTERPRISESN500100150ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN &PROJECT STATISTICSARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANSFDPLAN 12,351 sfSPANISHCOLONIALHACIENDASFDPLAN 22,553 sf"DUPLEX"PLAN 11,546 sf"DUPLEX"PLAN 21,868 sfVICINITY MAPPROJECT SUMMARY:·OWNER / APPLICANT:BORSTEIN ENTERPRISES, INC.11766 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 820LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025·CONTACT:ERIK PFAHLERerik@borsteinenterprises.com310.582.1991 x203·APN:5389-009-029, 030, 031·ZONING:··CURRENT:R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL··PROPOSED:P-D·GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION··EXISTING:LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL··PROPOSED:MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL·PROJECT SIZE:··GROSS SF:3.435 AC (149,929 SF)··NET SF:3.378 AC (147,146 SF)·LOT SIZE / F.A.R. / LOT COVERAGE:··LOT 1 (DU 9-37) : 127,151 SF / 67.1% / 43.0%··LOT 2 (DU 4):3,089 SF / 76.8% / 39.5%··LOT 3 (DU 3):2,250 SF / 90.7% / 48.0%··LOT 4 (DU 2):2,250 SF / 90.7% / 48.0%··LOT 5 (DU 1):2,809 SF / 84.5% / 43.5%··LOT 6 (DU 5):3,095 SF / 76.7% / 39.5%··LOT 7 (DU 6):2,002 SF / 102.0% / 54.0%··LOT 8 (DU 7):2,002 SF / 102.0% / 54.0%··LOT 9 (DU 8):2,499 SF / 95.0% / 48.9%·TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLNG UNITS:37 DU··SFD PLAN 1:14 DU··SFD PLAN 2:15 DU··DUPLEX PLAN 1:4 DU··DUPLEX PLAN 2:4 DU·DENSITY:10.95 DU/AC• OPEN SPACE AREA: 17,298 SF / 11.8% WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS·PARKING:··GARAGE:74 SPACES··GUEST:25 SPACES··BICYCLE:2 SPACES·BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE VB·OCCUPANCY:R-3 SFD/DUPLEX (CRC)·PRIVATE OPEN SPACE:VARIES: MIN. 390 SF / DU ACHIEVED·SCHOOL DISTRICT:ROSEMEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT3907 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD #220ROSEMEAD, CA 91770626.312.2900·ELECTRICAL SERVICE:SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISONP.O. BOX 6400RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91729800.655.4555·GAS SERVICE:SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANYP.O. BOX CMONTEREY PARK, CA 91756800.427.2200·WATER SERVICE:CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY8657 GRAND AVENUEROSEMEAD, CA 91770626.614.2500REFER TO CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.SITE PLAN LEGENDFIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICULAR ACCESSFIRE HYDRANT (3 PROPOSED)BICYCLE RACK (2 SPACES)CENTRAL COMMON OPEN SPACE1,644
TOT.
SF
/ 1
.1% W
ITH
IN
PROJECT L
IMITSSURFACING: TURFOTHER COMMON OPEN SPACE15,654 TOT.
SF
/ 10.6%
WITHIN PROJECT LIMITSSURFACING: COMMON AREA
LANDSCAP
INGTOTAL OPEN SPACE17,298 TOT.
SF
/ 11.8%
WITHIN PROJECT LIMITSREAR YARD AREAS34,359 TOT.
SF
/ 23.4%
WITHIN PROJECT LIMITSCITY PARKWAY LANDSCAPE489 TOT. SF
/ 0.3
% W
ITH
IN
PROJECT
LIM
ITSSURFACING: PARKWAY LANDSCAPINGTOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA51,470 TOT.
SF
/ 34.5%
WITHIN PROJECT LIMITSR.O.W. HARDSCAPE1,383
TOT.
SF
/ 0
.9% W
ITH
IN
PROJECT L
IMITSSURFACING: NATURAL
COLORED CONCRETEDRIVE AISLE HARDSCAPE30,810 TOT.
SF
/ 20.9%
OF
PROJECTSURFACING: NATURAL
COLORED CONCRETEHARDSCAPE (SIDEWALKS)9,578
TOT.
SF
/ 6
.5% W
ITH
IN
PROJECT L
IMITSSURFACING: NATURAL
COLORED CONCRETETOTAL HARDSCAPE AREA40,388 TOT.
SF
/ 27.1%
WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS6ft HIGH SPLIT-FACE CUM WALL w/ 4inHIGH SPLIT-FACE CUM CAPPARKING STALLS TO BE STRIPED PERCITY MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION17.112.111HTRASH COLLECTION BIN LOCATION PERREPUBLIC SERVICES WILL SERVELETTERC01C02L01L02L03L04L05L06L07L08L09P01W01DWELLING UNIT LEGENDSPANISHCOLONIALHACIENDA
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
20
This page intentionally left blank.
8601 Mission DriveCity of RosemeadFigure 6aPlan 1 Exterior Elevations (Spanish Colonial)9'-1"9'-1"
25'-3"1003054102002102152151111403005001017104101003003052104105002001101014:124:124:12 4:124:12 4:124:124:124:124:12 4:124:12 4:12
410500100210410101100210410200101A1.2.1VALENCIA CALIFORNIA 91354949 939 1310www.architeyk.comA P P L
I
CA N TP RO JECTDRAWIN
GSDATESHEET NO.JOB NO.A RCH I T E Y K29222 DAKOTA DRIVELICENSEDARCHITECTC-31873STATEOFCALIFORNIAREN.10-31-23 EVERITT KANG8601-8623 MISSION DRIVEROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIABE-21-00122051611766 WILSHIRE BOULEVARDSUITE 820LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025310.582.1991BORSTEIN ENTERPRISESSPANISH COLONIALEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS& ROOF PLAN40812FRONT ELEVATIONENTRY ELEVATIONREAR ELEVATIONLEFT ELEVATIONROOF PLANPLAN 1 SFDEXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIAL LEGEND100: BUILDING COMPONENTSCONCRETE 'S' ROOF TILEWOOD FASCIA BOARDENTRY DOORMETAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORBUILDING ADDRESS SIGNAGE200: EXTERIOR STUCCO FINISHEXTERIOR STUCCO FINISHSTUCCO o/ FOAM TRIMSTUCCO o/ FOAM CORBELSSTUCCO o/ SHAPED FOAM300: PAINTED DETAILSPAINTED SHUTTERPAINTED FOAM FAUX GABLE END VENTS400: EXTERIOR WOODRAFTER TAILPOT SHELFOUTLOOKER / BRACKETCORBEL500: EXTERIOR METALPOT SHELF600: EXTERIOR VENEERSADHERED MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER700: MISCELLANEOUSDECORATIVE CERAMIC TILEDECORATIVE PRECAST GABLE END DETAIL100101110111140200210215220300305400405410415500600700710
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
22
This page intentionally left blank.
8601 Mission DriveCity of RosemeadFigure 6bPlan 1 Exterior Elevations (Hacienda)9'-1"9'-1"
25'-3"10071020021041521011114030040560040010122041010030021020060040541540010111010'-11"4:124:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:124:124:12 4:124:124:12 4:12
405100210410400101100210410200101A1.2.2VALENCIA CALIFORNIA 91354949 939 1310www.architeyk.comA P P L
I
CA N TP RO JECTDRAWIN
GSDATESHEET NO.JOB NO.A RCH I T E Y K29222 DAKOTA DRIVELICENSEDARCHITECTC-31873STATEOFCALIFORNIAREN.10-31-23 EVERITT KANG8601-8623 MISSION DRIVEROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIABE-21-00122051611766 WILSHIRE BOULEVARDSUITE 820LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025310.582.1991BORSTEIN ENTERPRISESHACIENDAEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS& ROOF PLAN40812FRONT ELEVATIONENTRY ELEVATIONREAR ELEVATIONLEFT ELEVATIONROOF PLANPLAN 1 SFDEXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIAL LEGEND100: BUILDING COMPONENTSCONCRETE 'S' ROOF TILEWOOD FASCIA BOARDENTRY DOORMETAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORBUILDING ADDRESS SIGNAGE200: EXTERIOR STUCCO FINISHEXTERIOR STUCCO FINISHSTUCCO o/ FOAM TRIMSTUCCO o/ FOAM CORBELSSTUCCO o/ SHAPED FOAM300: PAINTED DETAILSPAINTED SHUTTERPAINTED FOAM FAUX GABLE END VENTS400: EXTERIOR WOODRAFTER TAILPOT SHELFOUTLOOKER / BRACKETCORBEL500: EXTERIOR METALPOT SHELF600: EXTERIOR VENEERSADHERED MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER700: MISCELLANEOUSDECORATIVE CERAMIC TILEDECORATIVE PRECAST GABLE END DETAIL100101110111140200210215220300305400405410415500600700710
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
24
This page intentionally left blank.
8601 Mission DriveCity of RosemeadFigure 6cPlan 2 Exterior Elevations (Spanish Colonial)9'-1"9'-1"
27'-2"1003054102002107002151111403005004101017104101003003052104105002005001011104:124:124:12 4:124:124:124:124:12 4:12
410500100210410305101100210410200300101A2.2.1VALENCIA CALIFORNIA 91354949 939 1310www.architeyk.comA P P L
I
CA N TP RO JECTDRAWIN
GSDATESHEET NO.JOB NO.A RCH I T E Y K29222 DAKOTA DRIVELICENSEDARCHITECTC-31873STATEOFCALIFORNIAREN.10-31-23 EVERITT KANG8601-8623 MISSION DRIVEROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIABE-21-00122051611766 WILSHIRE BOULEVARDSUITE 820LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025310.582.1991BORSTEIN ENTERPRISESSPANISH COLONIALEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS& ROOF PLAN40812FRONT ELEVATIONENTRY ELEVATIONREAR ELEVATIONLEFT ELEVATIONROOF PLANPLAN 2 SFDEXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIAL LEGEND100: BUILDING COMPONENTSCONCRETE 'S' ROOF TILEWOOD FASCIA BOARDENTRY DOORMETAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORBUILDING ADDRESS SIGNAGE200: EXTERIOR STUCCO FINISHEXTERIOR STUCCO FINISHSTUCCO o/ FOAM TRIMSTUCCO o/ FOAM CORBELSSTUCCO o/ SHAPED FOAM300: PAINTED DETAILSPAINTED SHUTTERPAINTED FOAM FAUX GABLE END VENTS400: EXTERIOR WOODRAFTER TAILPOT SHELFOUTLOOKER / BRACKETCORBEL500: EXTERIOR METALPOT SHELF600: EXTERIOR VENEERSADHERED MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER700: MISCELLANEOUSDECORATIVE CERAMIC TILEDECORATIVE PRECAST GABLE END DETAIL100101110111140200210215220300305400405410415500600700710
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
26
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission VillasCity of RosemeadFigure 6dPlan 2 Exterior Elevations (Hacienda)9'-1"9'-1"
27'-2"1007102002106002101111403004054007102151012204101003002102006004004057101011104:124:124:12 4:124:12 4:124:124:124:12 4:12
710210410400100215101100210410200400300101A2.2.2VALENCIA CALIFORNIA 91354949 939 1310www.architeyk.comA P P L
I
CA N TP RO JECTDRAWIN
GSDATESHEET NO.JOB NO.A RCH I T E Y K29222 DAKOTA DRIVELICENSEDARCHITECTC-31873STATEOFCALIFORNIAREN.10-31-23 EVERITT KANG8601-8623 MISSION DRIVEROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIABE-21-00122051611766 WILSHIRE BOULEVARDSUITE 820LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025310.582.1991BORSTEIN ENTERPRISESHACIENDAEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS& ROOF PLAN40812FRONT ELEVATIONENTRY ELEVATIONREAR ELEVATIONLEFT ELEVATIONROOF PLANPLAN 2 SFDEXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIAL LEGEND100: BUILDING COMPONENTSCONCRETE 'S' ROOF TILEWOOD FASCIA BOARDENTRY DOORMETAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORBUILDING ADDRESS SIGNAGE200: EXTERIOR STUCCO FINISHEXTERIOR STUCCO FINISHSTUCCO o/ FOAM TRIMSTUCCO o/ FOAM CORBELSSTUCCO o/ SHAPED FOAM300: PAINTED DETAILSPAINTED SHUTTERPAINTED FOAM FAUX GABLE END VENTS400: EXTERIOR WOODRAFTER TAILPOT SHELFOUTLOOKER / BRACKETCORBEL500: EXTERIOR METALPOT SHELF600: EXTERIOR VENEERSADHERED MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER700: MISCELLANEOUSDECORATIVE CERAMIC TILEDECORATIVE PRECAST GABLE END DETAIL100101110111140200210215220300305400405410415500600700710
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
28
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission VillasCity of RosemeadFigure 6eDuplex Exterior Elevations (Spanish Colonial)1401409'-1"9'-1"
27'-10"
9'-1"9'-1"
27'-10"100410305500300210200111210140410101200700100305410300500210101110100300500305410210101215200200700100305410300500210410110101A3.2.1VALENCIA CALIFORNIA 91354949 939 1310www.architeyk.comA P P L
I
CA N TP RO JECTDRAWIN
GSDATESHEET NO.JOB NO.A RCH I T E Y K29222 DAKOTA DRIVELICENSEDARCHITECTC-31873STATEOFCALIFORNIAREN.10-31-23 EVERITT KANG8601-8623 MISSION DRIVEROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIABE-21-00122051611766 WILSHIRE BOULEVARDSUITE 820LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025310.582.1991BORSTEIN ENTERPRISESSPANISH COLONIALEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS40812FRONT ELEVATIONDUPLEXENTRY ELEVATION (PLAN 2)REAR / MISSION DRIVE ELEVATIONENTRY ELEVATION (PLAN 1)EXTERIOR ELEVAT
ION MATER
IAL
LEGEND100: BUILDING COMPONENTSCONCRETE 'S'
ROOF T
ILEWOOD FASCIA BOARDENTRY DOORMETAL SECTIONAL GARAGE
DOORBUILDING ADDRESS SIGNAGE200: EXTERIOR STUCCO F
IN
ISHEXTERIOR
STUCCO F
IN
ISHSTUCCO o/ FOAM TRIMSTUCCO o/ FOAM CORBELSSTUCCO o/ SHAPED FOAM300: PAINTED DETAILSPAINTED SHUTTERPAINTED FOAM FAUX
GABLE END
VENTS400: EXTERIOR
WOODRAFTER TAILPOT SHELFOUTLOOKER / BRACKETCORBEL500: EXTERIOR METALPOT SHELF600: EXTERIOR VENEERSADHERED MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER700: MISCELLANEOUSDECORATIVE
CERAMIC
T
ILEDECORATIVE
PRECAST
GABLE
END DETA
IL 100101110111140200210215220300305400405410415500600700710
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
30
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission VillasCity of RosemeadFigure 6fDuplex Exterior Elevations (Hacienda)1401409'-1"9'-1"
27'-10"
9'-1"9'-1"
27'-10"100400405300210200111210140400101600210200220100710300405210101600110415100300405710210101415200600200220100710300405210110400210101A3.2.2VALENCIA CALIFORNIA 91354949 939 1310www.architeyk.comA P P L
I
CA N TP RO JECTDRAWIN
GSDATESHEET NO.JOB NO.A RCH I T E Y K29222 DAKOTA DRIVELICENSEDARCHITECTC-31873STATEOFCALIFORNIAREN.10-31-23 EVERITT KANG8601-8623 MISSION DRIVEROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIABE-21-00122051611766 WILSHIRE BOULEVARDSUITE 820LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025310.582.1991BORSTEIN ENTERPRISESHACIENDAEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS40812FRONT ELEVATIONDUPLEXENTRY ELEVATION (PLAN 2)REAR / MISSION DRIVE ELEVATIONENTRY ELEVATION (PLAN 1)EXTERIOR ELEVAT
ION MATER
IAL
LEGEND100: BUILDING COMPONENTSCONCRETE 'S'
ROOF T
ILEWOOD FASCIA BOARDENTRY DOORMETAL SECTIONAL GARAGE
DOORBUILDING ADDRESS SIGNAGE200: EXTERIOR STUCCO F
IN
ISHEXTERIOR
STUCCO F
IN
ISHSTUCCO o/ FOAM TRIMSTUCCO o/ FOAM CORBELSSTUCCO o/ SHAPED FOAM300: PAINTED DETAILSPAINTED SHUTTERPAINTED FOAM FAUX
GABLE END
VENTS400: EXTERIOR
WOODRAFTER TAILPOT SHELFOUTLOOKER / BRACKETCORBEL500: EXTERIOR METALPOT SHELF600: EXTERIOR VENEERSADHERED MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER700: MISCELLANEOUSDECORATIVE
CERAMIC
T
ILEDECORATIVE
PRECAST
GABLE
END DETA
IL 100101110111140200210215220300305400405410415500600700710
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
32
This page intentionally left blank
Mission Villas City of RosemeadFigure 7Conceptual Landscape PlanSchematic Landscape Plan8601-8623 Mission Drive, Rosemead,CABORSTEIN ENTERPRISESProject No.: EBU02Date: April 6, 20222nd City SubmittalMISSION VILLAS 80'Scale: 1" = 40'-0"040'20'1. Central Community Open Space area with a fire tab
le and adirondack seating area forsocial events and/or group gatherings, and Turf Area with bench seat for passive & activeplay.2. Main Pro
ject Entry: Enhanced veh
icular paving with palms and specimen trees. Refer toSheet L-2 Entry Enlargement Plan.3. Vehicular S
liding Gates.4. Entry Kiosk.5. Community bench at open space.6. Dog Bag Station. Color: Black.7. (3) Community Cluster Mailboxes and (1) Parcel Locker, per USPS review and approval.8. Enhanced Paving at Main Project Entry.9. Monument Signage at Project Entry.10. Proposed tree, per Planting Plan.11. Proposed wall, pilaster, gate or fence, per Wall & Fence Plan.12. 4' wide community natural colored concrete sidewalk, with broom finish and saw-cut
joints.13. 4' wide unit entry natural colored concrete wa
lk, with broom finish and saw-cut joints.14. Natural colored concrete driveway, with
light broom finish and tooled
joints.15. Private patio / yard area, homeowner maintained.16. Common area landscape, builder installed and HOA maintained.17. Property line.18. Public street R.O.W.19. Ex
isting publ
ic street sidewalk, per Civil plans.21. Residential/Guest parking stall.22. Utilities per Civil plans.23. Temporary Bicyc
le Parking (1 stall for 2 bikes)24. Privacy Hedge, per P
lanting Plan.LEGEND15111310161084921111111112710141515111115102424181719212111610161661072323*Conceptual images (provided herein are conceptual and subject to change)ENTRY ENLARGEMENTL2115'-0"8'-5"2'-5"5'-0"Mission DriveLimit of Work
Limit of Work
Limit of WorkLimit of Work2416Schematic Landscape Plan8601-8623 Mission Drive, Rosemead,CABORSTEIN ENTERPRISESProject No.: EBU02Date: April 6, 20222nd City SubmittalMISSION VILLAS 80'Scale: 1" = 40'-0"040'20'1. Central Community Open Space area with a fire table and adirondack seating area forsocial events and/or group gatherings, and Turf Area with bench seat for passive & activeplay.2. Main Project Entry: Enhanced vehicular paving with palms and specimen trees. Refer toSheet L-2 Entry Enlargement Plan.3. Vehicular Sliding Gates.4. Entry Kiosk.5. Community bench at open space.6. Dog Bag Station. Color: Black.7. (3) Community Cluster Mailboxes and (1) Parcel Locker, per USPS review and approval.8. Enhanced Paving at Main Project Entry.9. Monument Signage at Project Entry.10. Proposed tree, per Planting Plan.11. Proposed wall, pilaster, gate or fence, per Wall & Fence Plan.12. 4' wide community natural colored concrete sidewalk, with broom finish and saw-cut joints.13. 4' wide unit entry natural colored concrete walk, with broom finish and saw-cut joints.14. Natural colored concrete driveway, with light broom finish and tooled joints.15. Private patio / yard area, homeowner maintained.16. Common area landscape, builder installed and HOA maintained.17. Property line.18. Public street R.O.W.19. Existing public street sidewalk, per Civil plans.21. Residential/Guest parking stall.22. Utilities per Civil plans.23. Temporary Bicycle Parking (1 stall for 2 bikes)24. Privacy Hedge, per Planting Plan.LEGEND15111310161084921111111112710141515111115102424181719212111610161661072323*Conceptual images (provided herein are conceptual and subject to change)ENTRY ENLARGEMENTL2115'-0"8'-5"2'-5"5'-0"Mission DriveLimit of Work
Limit of Work
Limit of WorkLimit of Work2416
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
34
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission VillasCity of RosemeadFigure 8Wall and Fence PlanGAS ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS
ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS
ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS
ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS
ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GASELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GASELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS
ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS
ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS
ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GASELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GASELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GASELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GASELECM&PTELE/CABLE5 9710111213141516172021222332333134352425262728293018191236483637Limit of WorkLimit of W
o
r
k
Limit o
f
W
o
r
k
Limit of Work Limit of WorkMMM I S S I O N D R.////////////
//
//
//WALL LEGEND6'-0" High Split-face CMU Wall, with 4" High Split-face CMU Cap (Color: Tan).6'-0" High Vinyl private yard Fence (Color: White)5'-0" High T. S. Metal Fence (Color: Black).6'-6" High (24" sq.) Stone veneer over CMU pilaster, with Precast cap (Stone Veneer:To match Architecture; Cap Color: Tan).5'-6" High Vinyl private yard Gate (Color: White).ADA Path of Travel.Schematic Wall & Fence Plan8601-8623 Mission Drive, Rosemead,CABORSTEIN ENTERPRISESProject No.: EBU02Date: April 6, 20222nd City SubmittalMISSION VILLAS 80'Scale: 1" = 40'-0"040'20'NOTES:1. Perimeter walls to be examined in field to determineif existing walls will remain or be replaced.2. Minimum setbacks required per RMC Table17.24.030.2:- Side Yard (East Side Adjoining Residential Zone): 5feet of 10% of the lot width, whichever is greater.- Side Yard (West Side): None (Please note thatSouthern California Edison may have setback requirements due to high-voltage transmission linesadjacent to the project site.- Rear Yard: 5 feet of 10% of the lot width, whicheveris greater.GAS ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GASELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS
ELECM&PTELE/CABLEGAS
ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS
ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GASELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GASELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS
ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS
ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS
ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GAS ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GASELECM&PTELE/CABLEGASELECM&PTELE/CABLE GASELECM&PTELE/CABLE GAS ELECM&PTELE/CABLEGAS ELECM&PTELE/CABLE
GASELECM&PTELE/CABLE5 9710111213141516172021222332333134352425262728293018191236483637Limit of WorkLimit of
W
o
r
k
Limit of Work
Limit of Work Limit of WorkMMM I S S I O N D R.//
//
//////
//
//
//
//WALL LEGEND6'-0" High Split-face CMU Wall, with 4" High Split-face CMU Cap (Color: Tan).6'-0" High Vinyl private yard Fence (Color: White)5'-0" High T. S. Metal Fence (Color: Black).6'-6" High (24" sq.) Stone veneer over CMU pilaster, with Precast cap (Stone Veneer:To match Architecture; Cap Color: Tan).5'-6" High Vinyl private yard Gate (Color: White).ADA Path of Travel.Schematic Wall & Fence Plan8601-8623 Mission Drive, Rosemead,CABORSTEIN ENTERPRISESProject No.: EBU02Date: April 6, 20222nd City SubmittalMISSION VILLAS 80'Scale: 1" = 40'-0"040'20'NOTES:1. Perimeter walls to be examined in field to determineif existing walls will remain or be replaced.2. Minimum setbacks required per RMC Table17.24.030.2:- Side Yard (East Side Adjoining Residential Zone): 5feet of 10% of the lot width, whichever is greater.- Side Yard (West Side): None (Please note thatSouthern California Edison may have setback requirements due to high-voltage transmission linesadjacent to the project site.- Rear Yard: 5 feet of 10% of the lot width, whicheveris greater.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
36
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
19
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This section includes the completed environmental checklist form. The checklist form is used to assist
in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The checklist form
identifies potential Project effects as follows: 1) Potentially Significant Impact; 2) Less Than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated; 3) Less Than Significant Impact; and, 4) No Impact.
Substantiation and clarification for each checklist response is provided in Section 5 (Environmental
Evaluation). Included in the discussion for each topic are standard condition/regulations and
mitigation measures, if necessary, that are recommended for implementation as part of the
proposed Project.
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below () would be potentially affected by this Project,
involving at least one impact that is “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated
by the checklist on the following pages.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils/Paleontological 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
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
20
4.2 DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency) on the basis of this initial evaluation
I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been
made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
City of Rosemead
Printed Name For
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
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
21
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: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies
where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially
Significant Impact” to a “Less 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 Analysis,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (c)(3)(d). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
(a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated
or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the Project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference
to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to
a Project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to
evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the
impact to less than significance.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
22
4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. 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 which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. Scenic vistas consist of expansive, panoramic views of important, unique, or highly
valued visual features that are seen from public viewing areas. This definition combines visual
quality with information about view exposure to describe the level of interest or concern that viewers
may have for the quality of a particular view of visual setting.
The Project site is within an urbanized developed area of the City of Rosemead. The site is
surrounded by single family residences to the north, east, south, and open space to the west. Existing
public vantage points exist along roadways that surround the Project site, which do not contain
scenic vistas. Due to the existing one and two-story development surrounding the Project site and a
flat topography, the views surrounding the Project site are limited to roadway corridor views of
developed areas along Mission Drive and Walnut Grove Avenue with powerlines along Walnut
Grove Avenue.
The Project would develop the site and construct new two-story residential structures that would be
the same height or one story higher than the residential structures that are located to the east, north,
and south of the site. In addition, the new residential buildings would be setback 30-feet from
Mission Drive and the proposed 6-foot-high wall would be setback 16-feet from Mission Drive and
the proposed structures on the site would not encroach into views along the urban roadway corridor.
Also, the area is urban and there are no existing scenic vistas. Thus, development of the Project site
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
23
with two-story residential buildings would not obstruct, interrupt, or diminish a scenic vista; and
impacts would not occur.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The nearest Officially Designated State Scenic Highway is a portion of State Route
110 (SR-110), which is located approximately 5 miles northwest of the Project site and is not visible
from the Project site. (Caltrans 2022). Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic
highway would occur.
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 site is located within an urbanized area of the City of
Rosemead, along Mission Drive and is surrounded by residential and open space. The Project site
is vacant and undeveloped with some groundcover and onsite improvements. Public views of the
Project site from the street are limited to views of chain-link and picket fencing surrounding the
Project site with scattered palm trees throughout the site as shown on Figure 4a and 4b, Site Photos.
The Project would develop the Project to provide 37 two-story dwelling units as shown in Figure 5,
Conceptual Site Plan. The architectural design of the proposed buildings is characterized as
traditional architectural elements, multi-level rooflines, and an earth tone color scheme. The Project
would utilize concrete roof tile, metal sectional garage doors, exterior stucco finish with foam trim,
painted shutters, and exterior wood as shown in Figures 6a through 6f, Exterior Elevations. Large
residential windows, sidewalks, and landscaping would provide a residential character.
A 6-foot-high block wall is proposed to be located along the frontage of the Project site along
Mission Drive and along the boundary of the Project site. The wall would be setback 16 feet from
the right of way with landscape improvements within the setback, as shown in Figure 5, Conceptual
Site Plan. Therefore, forefront public views of the site would be primarily of the new landscaping,
decorative wall, and the driveway with enhanced pavement along Mission Drive.
General Plan. The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential
which consists primarily of detached single-family dwellings on individual lots and allows for a
maximum permitted density of 7.0 dwelling units per acre. As part of the Project, a General Plan
Amendment is proposed to change the land use designation of the site to Medium Density
Residential, which allows for up to 12 units per acre. Housing types within this density range include
single-family homes on smaller lots, duplexes, and attached units. The proposed Project would result
in a density of 11 units per acre, which would not exceed the allowable density for the proposed
land use designation. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable General Plan
land use regulation related to scenic quality, and impacts would be less than significant.
Zoning. The Project site is currently zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. Section 17.12.010
describes the R-1 zoning district as areas characterized by single-family dwellings. The Project
includes a zone change to Planned Development (P-D). The P-D zone is intended to provide for
residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional developments that are characterized by
innovative use and design concepts. This zone provides for a new development to offer amenities,
quality, design excellence and other similar benefits to the community and not be inhibited by strict
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
24
numerical development standards. A P-D zone shall include a parcel of land containing not less than
one acre. The proposed density of a residential planned development shall be consistent with the
land use element of the General Plan. As detailed, in Table AES-1, the Project would be consistent
with the Municipal Code standards for the P-D zone. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with
an applicable zoning regulation related to scenic quality, and impacts would be less than significant.
Table AES-1: Consistency with Proposed Zoning Development Standards
Development Feature P-D Zoning Requirement Proposed Project Consistency
Minimum Lot Area 1 acre Consistent. The proposed Project site is 3.38
net acres which exceeds the 1 acre minimum.
Minimum Lot Width None Consistent. The Project site has varying lot
widths and lot sizes ranging from 2,002 SF
to 127,151 SF
Maximum Density 12 DU/Acre Consistent. The Project proposes to have a
density of 11 DU/acre.
Setbacks
Front 10 feet Consistent The proposed Project would
provide a minimum 20-foot front setback
from Mission Drive.
Front (Adjoining Residential
Zone)
15 feet Not Applicable. The front of the proposed
Project does not adjoin a residential zone.
Side 10 feet Not Applicable.
Side 1st Floor (Adjoining
Residential Zone)
Greater of 5 ft or 10% of lot
width
Consistent. The Project would provide
minimum 13-foot side setbacks from lots
adjoining residential zones. for abutting the
Residential R zone to the east.
Side 2nd Floor 5 ft min. 15 ft combined Consistent. The Project would provide
minimum 13-foot side setbacks from lots
adjoining residential zones. for abutting the
Residential R zone to the east.
Rear 10 feet Not Applicable.
Rear (Adjoining Residential
Zone)
Greater of 5 ft or 10% of lot
width
Consistent. The Project would provide rear
setbacks from the patios that range from
6.24 feet to 15 feet.
Height None Consistent. The proposed residential
dwelling units would range from 25 feet 3
inches to 27 feet 10 inches in height.
Parking 2 spaces per dwelling unit in an
enclosed garage
Guest parking:
1 space per 2 dwelling
units
Consistent. The Project would include 74
garage spaces and 25 guest spaces which
would exceed the 19-guest space
requirement. Thus, a total of 99 spaces
would be included which exceeds the 2
spaces per dwelling unit requirement.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within a developed urban area. Existing
sources of light in the vicinity of the Project site includes: streetlights, lights from the athletic tract
adjacent to the north of the site, lighting from vehicle headlights along Mission Drive and Walnut
Grove Avenue, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting, landscape lighting, and
lighting from building interiors that passthrough windows.
Construction. Although construction activities would occur primarily during daylight hours,
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
25
construction activities could extend into the evening hours, as permitted by Chapter 8.36 of the
City’s Municipal Code (permitted construction activities from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays,
including Saturday). Construction activities shall not take place on Sunday or federal holidays.
Lighting required during construction of the Project would be shielded and directed toward work
activity areas, in compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 17.88 (included as PPP AES-1) that
provides for directing lighting away from adjacent uses and intensity of security lighting. In addition,
construction may include nighttime security lighting; however, this would be similar to the surrounding
uses adjacent to the site and streetlights. Also, any construction related lighting would be temporary
(approximately 11 months). Therefore, construction of the Project would not create a new source of
substantial light that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and light impacts
associated with construction would be less than significant.
Operation. The Project would include the provision of nighttime lighting for security purposes around
entrances, public sidewalks, open areas, and parking areas pursuant to Chapter 17.88 of the City’s
Municipal Code. The Project would introduce new sources of light with implementation of the Project.
Thus, the Project would contribute additional sources to the overall ambient nighttime lighting
conditions. However, the site is located within an urban area that includes various sources of
nighttime lighting, including the street lighting along Mission Drive and Walnut Grove Avenue. All
outdoor lighting would be of low intensity and shielded so that light will not spill out onto surrounding
properties or Project above the horizontal plane in accordance with Chapter 17.88 of the City’s
Municipal Code (included as PPP AES-1). Because the Project area is within an already developed
area with various sources of existing nighttime lighting, and because the Project would be required
to comply with the City’s lighting regulations that would be verified by the City during the plan
check and permitting process, any increase in lighting that would be generated by the Project would
not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Overall, lighting impacts would be less
than significant.
Reflective light (glare) can be caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces
such as window glass or other reflective materials. Generally, darker or mirrored glass would have
a higher visible light reflectance than clear glass. Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials
from which the sun reflects at a low angle can cause adverse glare. However, the Project would not
use highly reflective surfaces, or glass sided buildings. Although the building would contain windows,
the windows would be comprised of blue reflective glazing, which reduces glare over other
transparent surfaces and the windows would be separated by stucco that would limit the potential
of glare. As described previously, onsite lighting would be angled down and be compliant with
Chapter 17.88 of the City’s Municipal Code (included as PPP AES-1), which would avoid the
potential of onsite lighting generating offsite glare. Therefore, the Project would not generate
substantial sources of glare, and impacts would be less than significant.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP AES-1: Light and Glare. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 17.88, exterior lighting shall be
of low intensity and shielded so that light will not spill out onto surrounding properties or Project
above the horizontal plane.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to aesthetics are required.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
26
Sources
Caltrans State Scenic Highway System Map (Caltrans 2022). Accessed:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7
000dfcc19983
City of Rosemead General Plan. Accessed: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10034989/File/Gov/City%20Departments/Com
munity%20Development/Planning/Rosemead.pdf
City of Rosemead Municipal Code. Accessed:
https://library.municode.com/ca/rosemead/codes/code_of_ordinances
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
27
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2. 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 Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and 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:
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 result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
28
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, 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 and undeveloped and located within an area that is largely
developed for urban uses. The Project site and its vicinity are void of agricultural uses. The California
Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies the site as
urban land and it is not identified as Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (CDC
2021). Therefore, conversion of such farmland designations would not occur from implementation
of the proposed Project. No impact would occur.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The Project site is currently zoned R-1 Single Family Residential, which does not provide
for agricultural uses. In addition, the site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Thus, the
proposed Project would not result in impacts related to conflict with an existing agricultural zone or
Williamson contract, and impacts would not occur.
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. The Project site currently vacant and undeveloped and within an urbanized developed
area. No forest land exists on or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site is currently zoned R-1
Single Family Residential and is not zoned for forest land or timberland uses. Thus, the proposed
Project would not result in impacts related to a conflict with existing forest land or timberland zoning,
and impacts would not occur.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped and within an urbanized developed
area. No forest land exists on or adjacent to the Project site. Thus, the Project would not result in
the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use, and impacts would not occur.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
No Impact. As described above, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped and is within an
urbanized developed area. No forest land exists on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, the
implementation of the proposed Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment
which would result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest
land to a non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
There are no impact reducing Plans, Programs, and Policies related to agriculture and forestry that
are applicable to the Project.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
29
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures related to agriculture and forestry are required.
Sources
California Department of Conservation (CDC 2022). Division of Land Resource Protection.
California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
30
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3. 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 pollutant 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) affecting a substantial
number of people?
The discussion below is based on the Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis,
prepared by EPD Solutions. Inc., which is included as Appendix A.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is under
the jurisdictional boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The
SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for
preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which addresses federal and state Clean Air
Act (CAA) requirements. The 2016 AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air
quality in the Basin.
As described in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality
Handbook (1993), for purposes of analyzing consistency with the AQMP, if a proposed Project
would result in growth that is substantially greater than what was anticipated, then the proposed
Project would conflict with the AQMP. On the other hand, if a Project’s density is within the
anticipated growth of a jurisdiction, its emissions would be consistent with the assumptions in the
AQMP, and the Project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment plans. In addition, the
SCAQMD considers Projects consistent with the AQMP if the Project would not result in an increase
in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation.
The site is an undeveloped site that is located along a minor arterial roadway that is adjacent to
residential land uses and open space. The proposed Project would develop 37 two-story dwelling
units on the site. As further described in Section 14, Population and Housing, the 37 two-story
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
31
dwelling units would result in a 1.2 percent increase in residential units within the City. This limited
level of growth would not exceed growth Projections and would be consistent with the assumptions
in the 2016 AQMP.
Also, emissions generated by construction and operation of the proposed Project would not exceed
thresholds. As described in the analysis below and detailed in Appendix A, the Project would not
result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new
violation. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with the 2016 AQMP from the proposed Project
would be less than significant.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
Less than Significant Impact. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in a non-attainment status for
federal ozone standards, federal carbon monoxide standards, and state and federal particulate
matter standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the proposed Project, could cumulatively
contribute to these pollutant violations. The methodologies from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook are used in evaluating Project impacts. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds
for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table AQ-1. Should construction or operation
of the proposed Project exceed these thresholds a significant impact could occur; however, if
estimated emissions are less than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant.
Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds
Pollutant Construction
(lbs/day)
Operations
(lbs/day)
NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
Source: Regional Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD
Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015 (revised April 2019)
Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from
the following construction activities: demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction,
paving, architectural coating. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary,
depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring. Construction activities would
generate emissions from the demolition of the onsite pavement, site preparation, grading, and
building construction. In addition, the Project would generate a need for construction worker vehicle
trips to and from the Project site during the estimated 11 months of construction.
It is mandatory for all construction Projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule
403 for controlling fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403
requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the
generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground
cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires
and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the proposed Project site, covering all trucks hauling
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
32
soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12-inches, and maintaining effective
cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions
modeling and is included as PPP AQ-2.
In addition, implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113 that governs the VOC content in architectural
coating, paint, thinners, and solvents, would be required and is included as PPP AQ-3. As shown in
Table AQ-2, CalEEMod results provide that construction emissions generated by the proposed
Project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, construction activities would
result in a less than significant impact.
Table AQ-2: Regional Construction Emissions Summary
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2023
Demolition 2.9 28.3 24.9 0.0 1.7 1.2
Site Prep 4.0 39.7 35.5 0.1 6.9 4.3
Grading 2.1 20.1 20.7 0.0 2.8 1.8
Building Construction 1.4 13.1 15.7 0.0 0.6 0.6
Paving 1.1 8.5 10.5 0.0 0.4 0.4
Maximum Daily
Emissions 4.0 39.7 35.5 0.1 6.9 4.3
2024
Paving 1.1 8.2 10.5 0.0 0.4 0.4
Architectural Coating 31.3 1.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Maximum Daily
Emissions 31.3 8.2 10.5 0.0 0.4 0.4
Maximum Daily
Emission 2023-2024 31.3 39.7 35.5 0.1 6.9 4.3
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 and PM2.5 = particular matter; ROG = reactive organic gasses; SOx = sulfur oxides Source: EPD, 2022 (Appendix A)
Operation
Implementation of the 37 two-story dwelling units would result in long-term regional emissions of
criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas
consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products. However,
operational vehicular emissions would generate a majority of the emissions generated from the
Project.
Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project were modeled using CalEEMod and
are presented in Table AQ-3. As shown, the proposed Project would result in long-term regional
emissions of the criteria pollutants that would be below the SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds.
Therefore, the Project’s operational emissions would not exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS, would
not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant impacts, and would
be less than significant.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
33
Table AQ-3: Summary of Regional Operational Emissions
Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area 2.2 0.6 2.4 0.0 0.1 0.1
Energy 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1
Mobile 1.3 1.1 11.6 0.0 0.9 0.2
Total Project Operational
Emissions 3.5 2.4 14.2 0.0 1.0 0.3
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: EPD, 2022 (Appendix A)
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of localized NO2, CO,
PM10, and PM2.5 construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the
Project site. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis.
The impacts were analyzed pursuant to the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold
Methodology. SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a Project
that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized
air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of NOx, CO, PM10,
and PM2.5 pollutants for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the SCAB. The Project site
is located in SRA 11, South San Gabriel Valley.
Sensitive receptors can include residential uses such as long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation
centers, and retirement homes. Residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic
facilities can also be considered sensitive receptors. The nearest LST sensitive receptors to the Project
site are the existing residences that are to the northwest of the site.
Construction
The localized thresholds from the mass rate look-up tables in SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance
Threshold Methodology document, were developed for use on Projects that are less than or equal
to 5-acres in size or have a disturbance of less than or equal to 5 acres daily and were used to
evaluate LSTs. Localized construction emissions associated with the proposed Project were modeled
using CalEEMod and are presented in Table AQ-4. As shown in Table AQ-4, with implementation
of SCAQMD Rules 403 and 1113 (included as PPP AQ-2 and PPP AQ-3), the maximum daily
construction emissions from the proposed Project would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LST
thresholds. The maximum daily emissions assumes that demolition, preparation, grading, building
construction, and paving would overlap and occur at the same time. However, these are separate
stages of work and would not occur simultaneously. Thus, a conservative analysis was utilized for
the maximum daily emissions.
Table AQ-4: Localized Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2022
Demolition 27.3 23.5 1.7 1.2
Site Prep 39.7 35.5 6.9 4.3
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
34
Grading 20.0 19.7 2.8 1.8
Building Construction 12.8 14.3 0.6 0.6
Paving 8.5 10.5 0.4 0.4
Maximum Daily Emissions 39.7 35.5 6.9 4.3
2023
Paving 8.2 10.5 0.4 0.4
Architectural Coating 1.2 1.5 0.0 0.0
Maximum Daily Emissions 8.2 10.5 0.4 0.4
Maximum Daily Emission
2023-2024 39.7 35.5 6.9 4.3
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 121 1,031 7 5
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: EPD, 2022 (Appendix A)
Operation
Localized Significance Analysis. The proposed Project would operate 37 two-story dwelling units,
which would not involve vehicles idling or queueing for long periods. Therefore, due to the lack of
significant stationary source emissions, impacts related to operational localized significance
thresholds would be less than significant.
CO Hotspots. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called
hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the
eight-hour standard of 9 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle
combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality
standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots
are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue
for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds.
With the turnover of older vehicles and introduction of cleaner fuels, electric vehicles, and vehicles
with stop-start systems (where the engine shuts down when the vehicle is stopped and restarts when
the break petal is released), as well as implementation of control technology on industrial facilities,
CO concentrations in the SCAB and the state have steadily declined.
The analysis of CO hotspots compares the volume of traffic that has the potential to generate a
CO hotspot (exceedance the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9
ppm) and the volume of traffic with implementation of the proposed Project. In 2003, the SCAQMD
estimated that a Project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more
than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air
does not mix—in order to exceed state standards and generate a CO hot spot.
As detailed in Section 17, Transportation (Table TR-1), based on the trip rates from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition, 2021, the proposed Project would generate
26 vehicle trips (7 inbound trips and 19 outbound trips) during the AM peak hour. During the PM
peak hour, the Project would generate 35 new vehicle trips (22 inbound trips and 13 outbound
trips). Thus, the proposed Project would not result in an increase in traffic volumes at a single
intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical
and/or horizontal air does not mix and would not generate a CO hotspot. Therefore, impacts
related to CO hotspots from operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
35
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not emit other emissions, such as those
generating objectionable odors, that would affect a substantial number of people. The threshold
for odor is identified by SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air
contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance
to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the
comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause,
or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The
provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations
necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
The type of facilities that are considered to result in other emissions, such as objectionable odors,
include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations,
fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms,
petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing
facilities.
The proposed Project would implement residential development within the Project area that does
not involve the types of uses that would emit objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people. In addition, odors generated by non-residential land uses are required to be in compliance
with SCAQMD Rule 402, which would prevent nuisance odors.
During construction, emissions from construction equipment, architectural coatings, and paving
activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, intermittent in nature,
and would not affect a substantial number of people. The noxious odors would be confined to the
immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. Also, the short-term construction-related odors
would cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor-producing materials. Therefore, impacts
associated with other emissions, such as odors, would not adversely affect a substantial number of
people.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP AQ-1: Rule 402. The construction plans and specifications shall state that the Project is required
to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402.
The Project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or
other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number
of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such
persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to
business or property.
PPP AQ-2: Rule 403. The construction plans and specifications shall state that the Project is required
to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403,
which includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed
25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
36
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the
Project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily
during dry weather; preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for
the day.
• The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are
reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.
PPP AQ-3: Rule 1113. The construction plans and specifications shall state that the Project is
required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule
(SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter
of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to air quality are required.
Sources
Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis. Prepared by EPD Solutions (EPD,
2022) (Appendix A).
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
37
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
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, filling, 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 a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The discussion below is based on the General Biological Assessment, prepared by Hernandez
Environmental Services, which is included as Appendix B.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site is vacant and contains a portion
of a paved driveway, disturbed dirt trails, and gravel. The perimeters of the site are bound by
chain-link fencing, masonry block walls, and plastic fencing. There are palm trees present along the
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
38
northwest property boundary. The Project site is surrounded by urban developed areas with
structures, paved parking, and ornamental landscaping.
Sensitive Plant Species
The Project site consists of ruderal habitat dominated by non-native plant species. A total of 45
sensitive species of plants have the potential to occur on or within the vicinity of the Project site. A
total of 13 plant species are listed as state or federally Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate
species. A field survey was conducted by Hernandez Environmental Services on June 27, 2022.
Linear transects approximately 50 feet apart were walked for 100 percent coverage. All species
observed were recorded and Global Positioning System (GPS) way points were taken to delineate
specific habitat types and species locations. Table BIO-1 shows survey results for listed and
potential plant species and demonstrates that no sensitive plant species are present on the Project
site.
Table Bio-1: Potentially Occurring Plant Species
Plant Species Presence
Braunton’s Milk-vetch Not Present
Parish’s Brittlescale Not Present
Nevin’s Barberry Not Present
Lucky Morning-glory Not Present
Southern Tarplant Not Present
Smoorth Tarplant Not Present
Parry’s Spineflower Not Present
Slender-horned Spineflower Not Present
San Gabriel Mountains Dudleya Not Present
Mesa Horkelia Not Present
Coulter’s Goldfields Not Present
California Orcutt Grass Not Present
Brand’s Star Phacelia Not Present
Source: Hernandez, 2022 (Appendix B)
Sensitive Animal Species
As discussed above, a field survey was conducted by Hernandez Environmental Services on June
27, 2022, linear transects approximately 50 feet apart were walked for 100 percent coverage.
All species observed were recorded and Global Positioning System (GPS) way points were taken
to delineate specific habitat types and species locations. Based on the California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB), a total of 45 sensitive species of animals have the potential to occur on or
within the vicinity of the Project site. A total of 10 wildlife species are listed as state and/or
federally Threatened, Endangered, Rare or Candidate Species. Table BIO-2 below shows survey
results for listed and potential plant species and demonstrates that no sensitive animal species are
present on the Project site, with the exception of the Bell’s Sage Sparrow that has the potential to
be present.
Table Bio-2: Potentially Occurring Animal Species
Plant Species Presence
Arroyo Toad Not currently
present, no potential
for presence
Swainson’s Hawk Not currently
present, no potential
for presence
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
39
Bell’s Sage Sparrow Not currently
present, has
potential to be
present in future
Santa Ana Sucker Not currently
present, no potential
for presence
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Not currently
present, no potential
for presence
Coastal California gnatcatcher Not currently
present, no potential
for presence
Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Not currently
present, no potential
for presence
Southern Mountain Yellow-Legged
Frog
Not currently
present, no potential
for presence
Bank Swallow Not currently
present, no potential
for presence
Least Bell’s Vireo Not currently
present, no potential
for presence
Coulter’s Goldfields Not currently
present, no potential
for presence
California Orcutt Grass Not currently
present, no potential
for presence
Brand’s Star Phacelia Not currently
present, no potential
for presence
Source: Hernandez, 2022 (Appendix B)
As determined by the field survey and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant
Inventory, no endangered, rare, threatened, or special status plant species (or associated habitats)
or wildlife species designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or California Native Plant Society (CNPS) currently occur
on the site. However, The Bell’s Sage Sparrow has potential to occur onsite. Therefore, Mitigation
Measure (MM) BIO-1 is included to require vegetation removal and other disturbance activities to
be conducted outside of nesting bird season and would require a pre-construction nesting bird
survey if construction activities are required during nesting bird season. Potential impacts to the
Bell’s Sage Sparrow would be less than significant with mitigation. As no sensitive species or habitat
occur onsite and the Project would comply with MM BIO-1, implementation of the Project would not
result in an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any sensitive species,
and impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. Riparian habitats occur along the banks of rivers, streams, or wetland areas. Sensitive
natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
40
agencies or are known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species. As described in the
previous response, the Project site is within an urban area, developed, and does not contain any
natural habitats, including riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. Additionally, the Project
site is bound by developed areas that include buildings, pavement, roadways, and small areas of
open space that do not contain sensitive natural habitat areas. Thus, no impacts related to riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans would result from
Project implementation.
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, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
No Impact. Wetlands are defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or
saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands
include areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. The Project site and adjacent areas are located
within a developed urban area and do not contain wetlands. Therefore, the Project would not result
in impacts to wetlands.
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?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Wildlife corridors are areas where wildlife
movement is concentrated due to natural or anthropogenic constraints and corridors provide access
to resources such as food, water, and shelter. Animals use these corridors to move between different
habitats and provide avenues for wildlife dispersal, migration, and contact between other
populations. The Project site does not support conditions of migratory wildlife corridors or linkages.
The Project site is surrounded by a roadway and developed land uses. The site and surrounding
areas do not provide function for wildlife movement. Additionally, the surrounding area is
developed and urban. There are no rivers, creeks, or open drainages near the site that could
function as a wildlife corridor. Thus, implementation of the Project would not result in impacts related
to wildlife movement or wildlife corridors.
However, the Project site contains existing ornamental trees that could be used for nesting by bird
species that are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish
and Game Code Sections 3503.5, 3511, and 3515 during the avian nesting and breeding season
that occurs between February 1 and September 15. The provisions of the MBTA prohibits disturbing
or destroying active nests. Therefore, MM BIO-1 has been included to require that if commencement
of vegetation clearing occurs between February 1 and September 15, a qualified biologist shall
conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to commencement of activities to confirm
the absence of nesting birds. With implementation of MM BIO-1, potential impacts to nesting birds
would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. There are no local biological related policies or ordinances, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance that is applicable to the Project. Oak trees in the City are protected under the
City’s Municipal Code Chapter 17.104 which creates conditions for the preservation and
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
41
propagation of oak trees within the City. The Project does not contain any oak trees and would
install new trees throughout the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not
conflict with local polices or ordinances protecting trees and no impact would occur.
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 Project site is disturbed and in an urban area. The Project site does not contain any
natural lands that are subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore,
the Project would not result in impacts to biological habitat plans.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
None.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Prior to commencement of grading activities,
the City Building Department, shall verify that in the event that vegetation and tree removal
activities occur within the active breeding season for birds (February 1–September 15), the Project
applicant (or their Construction Contractor) shall retain a qualified biologist (meaning a professional
biologist that is familiar with local birds and their nesting behaviors) to conduct a nesting bird survey
no more than 3 days prior to commencement of construction activities.
The nesting survey shall include the Project site and areas immediately adjacent to the site that
could potentially be affected by Project-related construction activities, such as noise, human activity,
and dust, etc. If active nesting of birds is observed within 100 feet of the designated construction
area prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer around the
active nests (e.g., as much as 500 feet for raptors and 300 feet for non-raptors [subject to the
recommendations of the qualified biologist]), and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests
are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.
Sources
City of Rosemead, Municipal Code, Chapters 17.104, Street Trees. Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/rosemead/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_TIT17
ZO_ART4SUST_CH17.104OATRPR
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/law/migratory-bird-treaty-act-1918
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
42
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The discussion below is based on the Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project
by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (Appendix C).
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the State CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource is
defined as something that meets one or more of the following criteria:
(1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR);
(2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC)
Section 5020.1(k);
(3) identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section
5024.1(g); or
(4) determined to be a historical resource by the Project’s Lead Agency.
According to the PRC, a resource is considered historically significant if it meets at least one of the
following criteria:
1) Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2) Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history;
3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction
or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or
4) Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history
of the local area, California or the nation.
The Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project site indicated that a church was
constructed on the Project site between 1953 and 1964 but was demolished in 1992. The structure
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
43
was not listed in the CRHR files. The records search and literature review concluded that there is a
low potential for prehistoric sites to be contained within the boundaries of the Project site due to
the extensive nature of past ground disturbances. In addition, there is a SCE Mesa-Ravendale-Rush
66kV transmission line located within the Project site that was identified as a cultural resource at
the SCCIC. However, according to the site record form, the transmission line was evaluated and did
not appear to be eligible under National Register/California Register Criterion A/4. In addition,
the transmission line is not situated within the Project site and is located above a portion of the site.
The 11-mile span of low-voltage electrical transmission lines were not installed or constructed to
include any innovative or unique features or materials that could be considered important to local,
state, or national history. The records searches did not identify any events on the Project site or
persons in relation to the Project site, that would meet the California Register criteria of a historic
resource. Therefore, the transmission line does not meet the CEQA criteria for a historic resource
and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As previously described, the Cultural
Resources Assessment identified one historic-aged cultural resource onsite. However, the Cultural
Resources Assessment concluded that the Transmission Line did not appear to be eligible under
National Register/California Register Criterion A/4. The Cultural Resources Assessment (including
field survey) prepared for the Project did not identify any archaeological resources within the
Project site. However, as discussed in the Cultural Resources Assessment, there is a potential for
previously unknown archaeological resources to be below the soil surface. Therefore, MM CUL-1
would require monitoring during ground-disturbing activities such as grading or trenching. In
addition, MM TCR-1 would require Native American monitoring to ensure cultural resource impacts
would remain less than significant with mitigation. With implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM TCR-
1, potential impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site has been previously disturbed, as described above,
and has not been previously used as a cemetery. It is not anticipated that implementation of the
proposed Project would result in the disturbance of human remains. Existing regulation under the
California Health and Safety Code, included as PPP CUL-1, outlines the procedures to undertake if
human remains are found on the Project site. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure
impacts related to potential disturbance of human remains would be less than significant.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP CUL-1: Human Remains. Should human remains be discovered during Project construction, the
Project will be required to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states
that no further disturbance may occur in the vicinity of the body until the County Coroner has made
a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The
County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be
prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine
the identity of and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or
his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD must
complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
44
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring. The Applicant shall retain a qualified
archaeologist to perform archaeological monitoring and the archaeologist shall be present during
initial ground-disturbing activities (e.g., site preparation and grading) to identify and assess any
known or suspected archaeological and/or cultural resource. The qualified archaeologist shall
develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan to address the details, timing, and responsibility
of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the Project site. The plan shall
include a scope of work, project grading and development scheduling, pre-construction meeting
(with consultants, contractors, and monitors), a monitoring schedule during all initial ground-
disturbance related activities, safety requirements, and protocols to follow in the event of previously
unknown cultural resources discoveries that could be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. The
plan shall be submitted to the City and the Consulting Tribe(s) for review and comment, prior to
final approval by the City.
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Native American Monitoring. 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.
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
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
45
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.
Sources
California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1
Brian Smith and Associates. Cultural Resources Study for the 8601 Mission Drive Project. March
2022. (Appendix C)
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a).
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
46
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
6. 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?
The discussion below is based on the Air Quality, and Energy Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis,
prepared by EPD Solutions. Inc., which is included as Appendix A.
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.
Construction
During construction of the proposed Project, energy would be consumed in three general forms:
1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the
Project sites, construction worker travel to and from the Project sites, as well as delivery
truck trips;
2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment;
and
3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete,
pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.
Construction activities related to the proposed building and the associated infrastructure would not
be expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-unit-of-development basis than other
development Projects in southern California. Construction does not involve any unusual or increased
need for energy. In addition, the extent of construction activities that would occur are limited to an
approximate 11-month period, and the demand for construction-related electricity and fuels would
be limited to that time frame.
Construction contractors are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable California Air
Resources Board (CARB) regulations governing the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or
replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off-road equipment as part of the City’s construction
permitting process. In addition, compliance with existing CARB idling restrictions, which is included
as PPP E-1, would reduce fuel combustion and energy consumption. The Project construction fuel
usage over the estimated 11-month construction period would result in the need for 10,233 gallons
of diesel fuel, which is summarized in Table E-1.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
47
Table E-1: Estimated Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption
Activity Equipment Number
Hours
per
day
Horse-
power
Days of
Construction
Total
Horsepower-
hours
Fuel Rate
(gal/hp-hr)
Fuel Use
(gallons)
Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 367 2 4,698 0.020615155 97
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
1 8 33 2 385 0.041912413 16
Excavators 3 8 36 2 657 0.019868435 13
Site
Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 5 17,616 0.020615155 363
Tractors/Loaders/Bac
khoes
4 8 84 5 4,973 0.019155948 95
Grading
Graders 1 8 148 8 3,884 0.021167864 82
Excavators 1 8 36 8 876 0.019868435 17
Tractors/Loaders/Bac
khoes
3 8 84 8 5,967 0.019155948 114
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 8 9,395 0.020615155 194
Model
Building
Construction
Cranes 1 8 367 230 195,831 0.014896922 2,917
Forklifts 3 8 82 230 90,528 0.010444038 945
Generator Sets 1 8 14 230 19,062 0.042356362 807
Tractors/Loaders/Bac
khoes
1 8 84 230 57,187 0.019155948 1,095
Welder 3 8 46 230 114,264 0.025848623 2,954
Paving
Tractors/Loaders/Bac
khoes
1 8 84 18 4,476 0.019155948 86
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
2 8 10 18 1,613 0.019767572 32
Pavers 1 8 81 18 4,899 0.021536901 106
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 18 9,228 0.01846541 170
Rollers 2 8 36 18 3,940 0.019837453 78
Architectural
Coating
Air Compressors 1 8 78 18 5,391 0.027606329 149
Total 10,233
Source: EPD, 2022 (Appendix A)
Table E-2 shows that construction related vehicle usage would use approximately 1,246 gallons of
diesel fuel and 3,095 gallons of gasoline to travel to and from the Project site. Tables E-3 shows
that a total of approximately 11,479 gallons of diesel fuel and 3,095 gallons of gasoline would
be used for construction of the proposed Project.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
48
Table E-2: Estimated Construction Vehicle Fuel Consumption
Construction
Source Number VMT Fuel Rate Gallons of Diesel
Fuel
Gallons of
Gasoline Fuel
Haul Trucks 56 1,120 5.96 188 0
Vendor Trucks 4 9,384 8.87 1,058 0
Worker Vehicles 72 80,179 25.91 0 3,095
Total 1,246 3,095
Source: EPD, 2022 (Appendix A)
Table E-3: Estimated Total Construction Fuel Usage
Construction Source Gallons of Diesel Fuel Gallons of Gasoline Fuel
Construction Vehicles 1,246 3,095
Off-road Construction
Equipment 10,233 0
Total 11,479 3,095
Source: EPD, 2022 (Appendix A)
In addition, construction contractors are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable
California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations governing the accelerated retrofitting,
repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off-road equipment. Also, compliance
with existing CARB idling restrictions and the use of newer engines and equipment would reduce
fuel combustion and energy consumption. Overall, construction activities would require limited
energy consumption, would comply with all existing regulations, and would therefore not be
expected to use large amounts of energy or fuel in a wasteful manner. Thus, impacts related to
construction energy usage would be less than significant.
Operation
Once operational, the Project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as well as
gasoline for motor vehicle trips. Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and
lighting of the residences, water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances,
parking lot and outdoor lighting, and the transport of electricity, natural gas, and water to the
areas where they would be consumed. This use of energy is typical for urban development, and no
operational activities or land uses would occur that would result in extraordinary energy
consumption. As detailed in Table E-4, operation of the proposed Project would use approximately
252,539 kilowatt-hour (kWh) per year of electricity, approximately 1,242,170 thousand British
thermal units (kBTU) per year of natural gas, and 45,533 gallons of gasoline annually.
Table E-4: Estimated Annual Operational Energy Consumption
Operational Source Energy Usage
Electricity (Kilowatt-Hours)
Project 252,539
Natural Gas (Thousands British Thermal Units)
Project 1,242,170
Petroleum (gasoline) Consumption
Annual VMT Gallons of Gasoline Fuel
Project 1,127,736 43,533
Source: EPD, 2022 (Appendix A).
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
49
Consistent with the 2019 CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 Part 6), the Project
would include photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on the rooftops of each of the residences. The State
of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction standards through
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the
time new building permits are issued by the City that the Project shall comply with the adopted
California Energy Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 6). The City’s administration of the Title
24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that
occurs during the permitting process, and is included as PPP E-1, which ensures that all requirements
are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy-efficient heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); energy-efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems;
reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and
incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy
usage periods would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would
be reduced. The California Energy Commission estimates that single-family homes built in
compliance with the 2019 energy efficiency standards uses about 7 percent less energy due to
energy-efficiency measures versus those built under the 2016 code. With use of rooftop solar
electricity generation, homes built under the 2019 code use about 53 percent less energy than
those under the 2016 standards (2019 Fact Sheet). In addition, the Project would be built to comply
with the 2019 energy efficiency standards as discussed in PPP E-1. Thus, operation of the Project
would not use large amounts of energy or fuel in a wasteful manner, and less than significant
operational energy impacts would occur.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact. The proposed Project would be required to meet the California Energy Code efficiency
standards in effect during permitting of the Project, as included as PPP E-1. The City’s administration
of the requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures during
the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. In addition, the Project would
not conflict with or obstruct opportunities to use renewable energy, such as solar energy. As
discussed, the Project proposes to use photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on each of the residences to
offset their energy demand in accordance with the existing Title 24 requirements (included as PPP
E-1). As such, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would not occur.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP E-1: California Energy Code Compliance. The Project is required to comply with the 2019
California Energy Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 12.24) to ensure efficient
use of energy. California Energy Code specifications are required to be incorporated into building
plans as a condition of building permit approval.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to energy are required.
Sources
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis, Prepared by EPD Solutions (EPD, 2022)
(Appendix A).
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
50
2019 Residential Energy Code Fact Sheet (2019 Fact Sheet). Accessed:
https://energycodeace.com/content/resources-ace/file_type=fact-sheet
2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Accessed:
https://energycodeace.com/site/custom/public/reference-ace-
2019/index.html#!Documents/section1500mandatoryfeaturesanddevices.htm#mairdistributionan
dventilationsystemductsplenumsandfans.htm
City of Rosemead Municipal Code. Accessed:
https://library.municode.com/ca/rosemead/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_TIT15
BUCO_CH15.24ENCO
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
51
The discussion below is based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Albus &
Associates, Inc., 2021 (GEO 2021) (Appendix D), the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,
prepared by Stantec (Phase 1 2021) (Appendix F), and the Paleontological Assessment prepared
by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (PALEO 2022) (Appendix E).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
7. 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?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the Project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water 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?
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
52
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone and no faults were identified on the site (GEO 2021). The closet known
active fault is the Elysian Park (Upper) fault located approximately 1.74 miles from the Project site.
Therefore, the potential for ground rupture due to an earthquake beneath the site is considered
low and any impact would be less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within a seismically active region of
Southern California. As mentioned previously, the Elysian Park (Upper) fault is located
approximately 1.74 miles from the site. The amount of motion expected at the Project site can vary
from none to forceful depending upon the distance to the fault and the magnitude of the
earthquake. Greater movement can be expected at sites located closer to an earthquake epicenter,
that consists of poorly consolidated material such as alluvium, and in response to an earthquake of
great magnitude. However, the Project site is not located near an earthquake epicenter. Thus,
greater movement would not be expected.
Structures built in the City of Rosemead are required to be built in compliance with the California
Building Code (CBC), which regulates all building and construction Projects within the City and
implements a minimum standard for building design and construction that includes specific
requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition.
Compliance with the CBC would include the incorporation of: 1) seismic safety features to minimize
the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; 2) proper building footings and
foundations; and 3) construction of the building structures so that it would withstand the effects of
strong ground shaking. Implementation of CBC standards would be verified by the City during the
plan check and permitting process. Because the proposed Project would be constructed in
compliance with the CBC, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related
to strong seismic ground shaking.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless
soils layers, located within approximately 50 feet of the ground surface, lose strength due to cyclic
pore water pressure generation from seismic shaking or other large cyclic loading. During the loss
of stress, the soil acquires “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements.
Soil properties and soil conditions such as type, age, texture, color, and consistency, along with
historical depths to ground water are used to identify, characterize, and correlate liquefaction
susceptible soils.
According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, the Project site is not located within a State-
designated zone of potentially liquefiable soils (GEO 2021). Additionally, groundwater was not
encountered to the maximum depth of 51.5 feet drilled during exploration. Furthermore,
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
53
groundwater well measurements conducted by the Los Angeles County in the vicinity of the Project
site since 1949 indicate that groundwater has been deeper than 50 feet for more than 70 years.
Therefore, historical high groundwater is anticipated to be deeper than 50 feet below the ground
surface. As a result, the potential for liquefaction to occur beneath the site is considered very low
(GEO 2021). In addition, the proposed Project would be required to be constructed in compliance
with the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code, included as PPP GEO-1, which would be verified
through the City’s plan check and permitting process. With compliance with existing regulations,
impacts related to seismically related ground failure and liquefaction would be less than significant.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides and other slope failures are secondary seismic effects that occur during or
soon after earthquakes. Areas that are most susceptible to earthquakes induced landslides are
steep slopes underlain by loose, weak soils, and areas on or adjacent to existing landslide deposits.
The site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 357 to 363 feet above mean
sea level (GEO 2021) and is surrounded by level areas that do not include hills or other changes
in topography that may result in landslides. As described above, the Project site is located in a
seismically active region subject to strong ground shaking. However, the Geotechnical Investigation
states that the site is not within an area identified to have a potential for landsliding (GEO 2021).
Therefore, the Project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects related to seismically
induced landslides.
b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed Project has the potential to contribute
to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Excavations and grading activities that would be required for
the Project would expose and loosen topsoil, which could be eroded by wind or water.
The City’s Municipal Code Chapter 13.16, Storm Water Management, implements the requirements
of the Los Angeles County Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit Order No. R4-2012-0175, as amended,
(MS4 Permit) establishes minimum stormwater management requirements and controls that are
required to be implemented for construction activities for the Project.
To reduce the potential for soil erosion and the loss of topsoil, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) is required by these City and RWQCB regulations to be developed by a QSD
(Qualified SWPPP Developer), which would be implemented by PPP WQ-1. The SWPPP is required
to address site-specific conditions related to specific grading and construction activities that could
cause erosion and the loss of topsoil and provide erosion control best management practices (BMPs)
to reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil. Erosion control BMPs include use of silt fencing,
fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding, etc. With
compliance with the City’s Municipal Code stormwater management requirements, RWQCB SWPPP
requirements, and installation of BMPs, which would be implemented by the City’s Project review
by the Department of Public Works, construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would
be 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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
54
Less than Significant Impact. Landslides and other forms of mass wasting, including mud flows,
debris flows, and soil slips, occur as soil moves downslope under the influence of gravity. Landslides
are frequently triggered by intense rainfall or seismic shaking. As described in Response a) iv., the
Project site is located in a relatively flat developed urban area that does not contain or adjacent
to large slopes, and the Project would not generate large slopes. Therefore, impacts related to
landslides would not occur.
Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction‐induced ground failure associated with the lateral
displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once
liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial
forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an
embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements and such movement
typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. According to the Geotechnical
Investigation, the Project site is not within a liquefaction zone, and high groundwater is not located
at the Project site. Therefore, the site has a low potential for lateral spreading. In addition, site soils
settlement would be reduced with implementation of the excavation and recompaction of the upper
two feet of onsite soils as proposed by the Project and compliance with the CBC. Thus, impacts
related to lateral spreading would be less than significant.
Subsidence is a general lowering of the ground surface over a large area that is generally
attributed to lowering of the ground water levels within a groundwater basin. Localized or focal
subsidence or settlement of the ground can occur as a result of an earthquake motion in an area
where groundwater in basin is lowered. As described previously, groundwater was not encountered
to the maximum depth of 51.5 feet drilled during site exploration (GEO 2021). In addition, the
Project would not involve groundwater pumping from the Project area. Thus, impacts related to
subsidence would not occur from implementation of the Project.
Also, as described in Response a) iii., the Project site is not within a potential liquefaction area as
groundwater is not located within 50 feet of the ground surface. Construction would include removal
and re-compaction of onsite soils in compliance with the CBC which would also reduce any potential
of liquefaction, settlement, and subsidence. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. As
described previously, the Project would be required to be constructed in compliance with the CBC
and the City’s Municipal Code, which would be verified through the City’s plan check and permitting
process. Thus, potential impacts related to liquefaction, settlement, and subsidence would be less
than significant.
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. Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or
swell as the moisture content changes; the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures
built on such soils. Arid or semiarid areas with seasonal changes of soil moisture experience, such as
southern California, have a higher potential of expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and
more constant soil moisture.
The Geotechnical Investigation determined that the site soils are anticipated to have a “very low”
expansion potential based on soils testing (GEO 2021). In addition, as described in the previous
responses, the Project would be required to be constructed in compliance with the CBC and the
City’s Municipal Code, that requires appropriate backfill, compaction of soils, and foundation
design to ensure stable soils, which would be verified through the City’s plan check and permitting
process. Thus, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
55
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. The Project
would install onsite sewers that would connect to the existing infrastructure that is adjacent to the
site. Therefore, no impacts related to the use of such facilities would occur from implementation of
the Project.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the
remains of ancient plants and animals that can provide scientifically significant information about
the history of life on Earth. Paleontological “sensitivity” is defined as the potential for a geologic
unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. This sensitivity is determined by rock type, past history
of the rock unit in producing significant fossils, and fossil localities that are recorded from that unit.
Paleontological sensitivity is assigned based on fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit,
not just a specific site.
The Paleontological Assessment confirmed that Holocene young alluvial fan and valley deposits are
mapped at the surface of the site. Based on the lack of known significant fossil localities nearby
and a low sensitivity rating assigned to Holocene-aged young alluvial deposits for yielding
paleontological resources, it is recommended that paleontological monitoring not be implemented
during mass grading and excavation activities, since impacts to potential paleontological resources
are considered to be less than significant. Although monitoring for paleontological resources is not
required for the Project, should paleontological resources be discovered at any time during earth
disturbance activities, pursuant to MM PAL-1, a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find
(PALEO 2021). Implementation of MM PAL-1 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources to
less than significant.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. The Project is required to comply with the California Building
Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 to preclude significant adverse effects
associated with seismic hazards. California Building Code related and geologist and/or civil
engineer specifications for the Project are required to be incorporated into grading plans and
specifications as a condition of Project approval.
PPP WQ-1: SWPPP. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project developer shall have a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a QSD (Qualified SWPPP Developer) in
accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 13.16 Stormwater Management and Discharge
Control and the Los Angeles County RWQCB NPDES Storm Water Permit Order No. R4-2012-
0175. The SWPPP shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other
NPDES regulations to limit the potential of erosion and polluted runoff during construction activities.
Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the SWPPP and permit periodic
inspection of the construction site by City of Rosemead staff or its designee to confirm compliance.
Mitigation Measures
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
56
Mitigation Measure PAL-1: Incidental Discoveries. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City
of Rosemead Planning Department shall verify that all Project grading and construction plans and
specifications state that in the event that potential paleontological resources are discovered during
excavation, grading, or construction activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a
qualified paleontologist (i.e., a practicing paleontologist that is recognized in the paleontological
community and is proficient in vertebrate paleontology) from the City or County List of Qualified
Paleontologists has evaluated the find and established a protocol for addressing the find, in
accordance with federal and state regulations. Construction personnel shall not collect or move any
paleontological materials and associated materials. If any fossil remains are discovered, the
paleontologist shall make a recommendation if monitoring shall be required for the continuance of
earth moving activities, and shall provide such monitoring if required.
Sources
Paleontological Assessment, prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., 2022 (PALEO 2022)
(Appendix E).
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Stantec (Phase 1 2021) (Appendix F).
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Albus & Associates, Inc., 2020 (GEO 2021)
(Appendix D).
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
57
The discussion below is based on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis,
prepared by EPD Solutions. Inc., which is included as Appendix A.
Explanation
Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a
critical role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface,
which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this
process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O),
and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible
for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of
these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the
enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s
natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global
warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture,
utilities, transportation, and residential land uses.
Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.
Transportation is responsible for 37 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, followed by
electricity generation. Emissions of CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane,
a potent greenhouse gas, results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and
landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation
and dissolution into the ocean.
California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders
regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368, EO
S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07. These regulations require the use of alternative energy,
such as solar power. Solar Projects produce electricity with no GHG emissions and assist in offsetting
GHG emissions produced by fossil-fuel-fired power plants.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8. 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?
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
58
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. Global climate change (GCC) describes alterations in weather
features (e.g., temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) that occur across the Earth as
a whole. GCC is not confined to a particular Project area and is generally accepted as the
consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical Project, even a very large
one, does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change
significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental
impact.
The principal GHGs of concern contributing to the greenhouse effect are CO2, CH4, N2O,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. GHGs are produced by both direct
and indirect emissions sources. Direct emissions include consumption of natural gas, heating and
cooling of buildings, landscaping activities and other equipment used directly by land uses. Indirect
emissions include the consumption of fossil fuels for vehicle trips, electricity generation, water usage,
and solid waste disposal. The large majority of GHG emissions generated from residential Projects
are related to vehicle trips.
The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions; however, the
SCAQMD has proposed interim numeric GHG significance thresholds that are based on capture of
approximately 90 percent of emissions from development, which is 3,000 metric tons carbon
dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year (SCAQMD 2008). Construction emissions are amortized
over a period of 30 years, added to the operational emissions, and compared to the applicable
threshold. This approach is widely used by cities in the South Coast Air Basin, including the City of
Rosemead. As such, this threshold is utilized herein to determine if GHG emissions from this Project
would be significant.
Construction
During construction, temporary sources of GHG emissions include construction equipment and
workers’ commutes to and from the site. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as
CO2, CH4, and N2O. Construction GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project were
modeled using CalEEMod and are presented in Table GHG-1. As shown on Table GHG-1, the
Project has the potential to generate a total of approximately 12 MTCO2e per year from
construction emissions amortized over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology.
Table GHG-1: Project Construction Emissions
Activity
Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2023 369
2024 2
Total Emissions 371
Total Emissions Amortized
Over 30 Years 12
Source: EPD, 2022 (Appendix A)
Operation
During operations, the proposed residences would generate long-term GHG emissions from
vehicular trips; water, natural gas, and electricity consumption; and solid waste generation. Natural
gas use results in the emission of two GHGs: CH4 (the major component of natural gas) and CO2
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
59
(from the combustion of natural gas). Electricity use can result in GHG production if the electricity is
generated by combusting fossil fuel.
Operational GHG emissions associated with the 37 residential units were modeled using CalEEMod
and are presented in Table GHG-2. The large majority of GHG emissions generated from the
residences would be from vehicle trips. As shown in Table GHG-2, the Project would generate
approximately 601 MTCO2e per year, which is less than the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000
MTCO2e. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Table GHG-2: Project Total GHG Emissions
Activity
Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Project Operational Emissions
Mobile 412
Area 10
Energy 172
Water 4
Waste 3
Total Project Gross
Operation Emissions
601
Project Construction
Emissions 12
Total Emissions 613
Significance Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: EPD, 2022 (Appendix A)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. As described in
the previous response, the Project would not exceed thresholds related to GHG emissions. In
addition, the Project would comply with regulations imposed by the state and the SCAQMD that
reduce GHG emissions, as described below:
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) is applicable to the Project because many
of the GHG reduction measures outlined in AB 32 (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, advanced
clean car standards, and cap-and-trade) have been adopted over the last 5 years and
implementation activities are ongoing. The proposed Project would not conflict with fuel and
car standards or cap-and-trade.
• Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493) establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new
(model year 2009-2016) passenger cars and light trucks. The Project would develop new
residential units that would not conflict with fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.
• Title 24 California Code of Regulations (Title 24) establishes energy efficiency requirements
for new construction that address the energy efficiency of new (and altered) buildings. The
Project is required to comply with Title 24, which would be verified by the City during the
plan check and permitting process.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
60
• Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard [LCFS]) requires carbon
content of fuel sold in California to be 10 percent less by 2020. Because the LCFS applies
to any transportation fuel that is sold or supplied in California, all vehicle trips generated
by the Project would comply with LCFS.
• California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) provides
requirements to ensure water efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water
waste in existing landscapes. The Project is required to comply with AB 1881 landscaping
requirements, which would be verified by the City during the plan check and permitting
process.
• Emissions from vehicles, which are a main source of operational GHG emissions, would be
reduced through implementation of federal and state fuel and air quality emissions
requirements that are implemented by CARB. In addition, as described in the previous
response, the Project would not result in an exceedance of an air quality standard.
The City currently does not have an adopted Climate Action Plan to reduce GHG emissions, and as
described in the previous response, emissions would not exceed the thresholds. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
See (b) above for applicable regulations.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to greenhouse gas emissions are required.
Sources
South Coast Air Quality Management District Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse
Gas Significance Thresholds (SCAQMD 2008). Accessed:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-
significancethresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf
Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas, Impact Analysis. Prepared by EPD Solutions (EPD,
2022) (Appendix A).
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
61
The discussion below is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Stantec
(Phase I 2021) (Appendix F) and Remedial Excavation Completion Report, prepared by Stantec
(Excavation 2022) (Appendix G).
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 hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its
quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9. 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, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the Project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working 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?
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
62
potential hazard to human health and safety or to environment if released into the environment.
Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and
any material that regulatory agencies have a reasonable basis for believing would be injuries to
the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the home, workplace,
or environment. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential
to damage public health and the environment.
Construction
The proposed construction activities would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking. In addition, hazardous materials would
be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the site. These types of materials
are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are
regulated by federal and state requirements that are implemented by the City during building
permitting for construction activities. These regulations include: the federal Occupational Safety and
Health Act and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act; Title 8 of the California Code of
Regulations (CalOSHA), and the state Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials
Management Regulatory Program. As a result, routine transport and use of hazardous materials
during construction would be less than significant.
Operation
The Project involves operation of 37 new two-story dwelling units and central common open space,
which involve routinely using hazardous materials including solvents, cleaning agents, paints,
pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. These types of materials are not acutely
hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities. The normal routine use of these
hazardous materials products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant
hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, operation of the Project
would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste, and impacts would be less than significant.
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.
Construction
Accidental Releases. While the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous
materials in accordance with applicable regulations during construction activities would not pose
health risks or result in significant impacts; improper use, storage, transportation and disposal of
hazardous materials and wastes could result in accidental spills or releases, posing health risks to
workers, the public, and the environment. To avoid an impact related to an accidental release, the
use of best management practices (BMPs) during construction would be implemented as part of a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System General Construction Permit (and included as PPP WQ-1). Implementation of
an SWPPP would minimize potential adverse effects to workers, the public, and the environment.
Construction contract specifications would include strict on-site handling rules and BMPs that include,
but are not limited to:
• Establishing a dedicated area for fuel storage and refueling and construction dewatering
activities that includes secondary containment protection measures and spill control supplies;
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
63
• Following manufacturers’ recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical
products used in construction;
• Avoiding overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks;
• Properly containing and removing grease and oils during routine maintenance of
equipment; and
• Properly disposing of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.
Historical On-Site Agricultural Use. The Project site was used for agricultural uses from
approximately 1928 through the 1950’s. Application of pesticide and herbicide is considered likely
to have occurred during this time period, potentially resulting in the accumulation of pesticides and
metals common with herbicide application in shallow soils at the site. Therefore, the former
agricultural activity on the site was considered a REC by the Phase I ESA (Phase I 2021).
In response to the potential accumulation of pesticides and herbicides in the soil onsite and the REC
identified in the Phase I ESA, Stantec oversaw the excavation and removal of approximately 300
cubic yards of impacted soil on March 28, 2022. The excavation removed soil that was
contaminated with chlordane to below screening levels to a maximum depth of 5 feet below ground
surface (bgs). Post remediation site-wide chlordane levels were reported below screening levels
(Excavation 2022). As such, no further action with respect to chlordane impacts in soil is warranted
as impacts were reduced to levels that are less than significant. Additionally, the shallow soil
investigation recommended in the Phase I ESA is no longer warranted as contaminated soils have
been removed. Therefore, construction of the Project would not result in a significant hazard to the
environment, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the Project site and impacts would be less than
significant.
Operation
As described previously, operation of the proposed 37 two-story dwelling units and related site
improvements includes use of limited hazardous materials, such as solvents, cleaning agents, paints,
pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. Normal routine use of typical residential products
pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment, residents,
or workers in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact. There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of
the Project site. The closest schools to the site are Emma W. Shuey Elementary School located 0.27
mile to the southwest, Muscatel Middle School located 0.38 mile to the southeast, Rosemead High
School located 0.45 mile to the west, and Gabrielino High School located 0.58 mile southwest. As
described previously, construction and operation of the Project would involve the use, storage, and
disposal of small amounts of hazardous materials on the Project site. These hazardous materials
would be limited and used and disposed of in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations,
which would reduce the potential for accidental release into the environment near a school. The
emissions that would be generated from construction and operation of the Project were evaluated
in the air quality analysis discussed above, and the emissions generated from the Project would not
cause or contribute to an exceedance of the federal or state air quality standards. Thus, the Project
would not emit hazardous or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste near a
school, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
64
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?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor
database, and the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the site (Phase 1 2021) the
Project site is not located on or nearby any hazardous material sites listed, pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5. As a result, impacts related to hazards from being located on or adjacent
to a hazardous materials site would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project.
e) For a Project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area?
No Impact. The Project site is not within two miles of an airport. The closest airport is the San Gabriel
Valley Airport, which is 2.5 miles east of the Project site. The Project site is not located within any
land use compatibility zone for the nearest airport, nor is it within an airport safety zone (ALUC
2022). Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the Project areas, and no impacts would occur.
f) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Less than Significant Impact.
Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would
occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site
or adjacent areas. During construction of the Project driveway, Mission Drive would remain open to
ensure adequate emergency access to the Project area and vicinity. Impacts related to interference
with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan during construction activities would be
less than significant.
Operation
Operation of the proposed Project would not result in a physical interference with an emergency
response evacuation. Direct access to the Project site would be provided from Mission Drive, which
is a 4-lane minor arterial roadway that is adjacent to the Project site. The Project is also required
to design and construct internal access and provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and
sprinklers) in conformance with the City Municipal Code and the Fire Department prior to approval
to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California
Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9) and the Fire Code included per
Municipal Code Chapter 8.24). As a result, the proposed Project would not impair implementation
of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan,
and impacts would be less than significant.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires?
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
65
No Impact. According to the California Fire Hazard Severity Zones mapping and Figure 12.5, Fire
Hazard Severity Zones Policy Map, of the Los Angeles County General Plan, the City of Rosemead
(including the Project site) is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project site is
located within an urbanized area and development of the site with residential uses would not result
in impacts related to the exposure of people or structures to loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
There are no impact reducing Plans, Programs, or Policies related to hazards and hazardous
materials that are applicable to the Project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to hazards and hazardous materials are required.
Sources
Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor Database (Envirostor): Available:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
LA County’s Airport Land Use Commission Site: Available:
https://lacounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=acf2e87194a54af9b266
bf07547f240a
Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning (Los Angeles County 2015). General Plan
2035. Figure 12.5, Fire Hazard Severity Zones Policy Map. Adopted October 6, 2015. Available
at: https://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/Project/gp_2035_2021-FIG_12-
5_Fire_Hazard_Severity_Zones_Policy_Map_Responsibility.pdf
Stantec. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I 2021) (Appendix F).
Stantec. Remedial Excavation Completion Report (Excavation 2022) (Appendix G).
Cal Fire. California Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). Available: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
66
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10. 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 offsite;
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?
The discussion below is based on the Preliminary Hydrology Study and Low Impact Development
Plan, 2022. Prepared by C&V Consulting Inc. (Appendix H and I).
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
67
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction
Construction of the Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen
sediment, and then have the potential to mix with surface water runoff and degrade water quality.
Additionally, construction would require the use of heavy equipment and construction-related
chemicals, such as concrete, cement, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents
and paints. Without implementation of a SWPPP, these potentially harmful materials could be
accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction and, if mixed with surface water
runoff, could wash into and pollute waters.
These types of water quality impacts during construction of the Project would be prevented through
implementation of a SWPPP. Construction of the Project would disturb more than one acre of soil;
therefore, the proposed Project would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General
Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Construction activity
subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and ground disturbances such as trenching,
stockpiling, or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires implementation of a SWPPP
that is required to identify all potential sources of pollution that are reasonably expected to affect
the quality of storm water discharges from the construction site. The SWPPP would generally contain
a site map showing the construction perimeter, proposed buildings, stormwater collection and
discharge points, general pre- and post-construction topography, drainage patterns across the site,
and adjacent roadways. The SWPPP would also include construction BMPs.
Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the appropriate BMPs as ensured
through the City’s plan check and permitting process are included as PPP WQ-1, which would ensure
that the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements,
potential water quality degradation associated with construction activities would be minimized, and
impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
The new residential uses would introduce pollutants such as, chemicals from household cleaners,
nutrients from fertilizer, pesticides and sediments from landscaping, domestic trash and debris, and
oil and grease from vehicles without implementation of a WQMP. These pollutants could potentially
discharge into surface waters and result in degradation of water quality. Thus, the Project would
be required to comply with existing regulations that limit the potential for pollutants to discharge
from the site.
Chapter 13.16 of the City’s Municipal Code (and PPP WQ-2) requires implementation of a WQMP
based on the anticipated pollutants that could result from the Project. The BMP would include
pollutant source control features and pollutant treatment control features. Project drainage on the
site would include onsite catch basins, infiltration systems, and a detention pipe system to capture
and treat stormwater. Stormwater runoff would be conveyed via proposed onsite gutter and
directed to a curb inlet. Two additional catch basins would be located along the center of the
Project site to convey stormwater into the underground storm drain system. All onsite catch basins
would be connected by storm drainpipes to the drywell infiltration system for water quality
treatment.
With implementation of the WQMP, pursuant to the City Municipal Code, (included as PPP WQ-2);
which would be verified during the plan check and permitting process for the proposed Project, the
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
68
proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements,
and impacts would be 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 currently receives water from the California American
Water-Los Angeles District that receives a portion of the district’s water supply from the Baldwin
Hills Central Basin, San Marino Raymond Basin, Duarte Main San Gabriel Basin, and San Marino
Main San Gabriel Basin. The Basin adjudicated and water extractions are managed by the Water
District, which regulates the amount of groundwater pumped from the Basin and sets the Basin
Production Percentage for all pumpers. In addition, the Project would receive water supplies through
the City’s water supply and would not extract groundwater.
As described in the previous response, the Project would include onsite catch basins, infiltration
systems, and a detention pipe system to capture and treat stormwater. Stormwater runoff would
be conveyed via proposed onsite gutter and directed to a curb inlet. Two additional catch basins
would be located along the center of the Project site to convey stormwater into the underground
storm drain system. All onsite catch basins would be connected by storm drainpipes to the drywell
infiltration system for water quality treatment. The Project would implement water efficient
plumbing fixtures and would comply with the CalGreen Plumbing Code along with installing a water
efficient landscape irrigation system. Thus, the proposed Project would implement groundwater
recharge through onsite infiltration, and Project interference with groundwater recharge or
groundwater management would not occur from the Project. Impacts would be less than significant.
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;
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site does not contain, nor is adjacent to, a
stream, river, creek, or other flowing water body. Thus, impacts related to alteration of
the course of a stream or river would not occur. The Project site is relatively flat and
would drain into the internal stormwater system proposed.
Construction
Construction of the Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would
loosen sediment and could result in erosion or siltation. However, as described
previously, construction of the proposed Project requires City approval of a SWPPP
prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, as included by PPP WQ-1. The SWPPP is
required during the City’s plan check and permitting process and would include
construction BMPs to reduce erosion or siltation. Typical BMPs for erosion or siltation,
include use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, gravel bags, stabilized construction driveway, and
stockpile management (as described in the previous above). Adherence to the existing
requirements and implementation of the required BMPs per the plan check and
permitting process would ensure that erosion and siltation associated with construction
activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
69
Operation
The Project site is currently disturbed with a partially paved asphalt driveway. The
existing condition has 98.5% (3.33 acres) pervious area and 1.5% (0.05 acre)
impervious area. After development of the Project, the site would have 14% (0.47 acres)
pervious area and 86% (2.91 acres) impervious area. The proposed Project would
increase the overall impervious footprint by 84.5% (2.86 acres) However, the Project
would maintain the existing drainage patter and install a new onsite stormwater
drainage system. Pervious areas onsite would be landscaped and would not generate
soils that could erode. In addition, the proposed drainage infrastructure would slow and
retain stormwater, which would also limit the potential for erosion or siltation. Also, as
described previously, the City requires the Project to implement a WQMP (as included
by PPP WQ-2) that would implement BMPs, which reduce erosion and siltation. As a
result, stormwater runoff and the potential for erosion and siltation would not increase
with implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not
alter the existing drainage pattern in the Project area and would not result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or offsite. Impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in the previous response, the Project site
does not contain, nor is adjacent to, a stream, river, creek, or other flowing water body.
Thus, impacts related to alteration of the course of a stream or river would not occur. In
addition, the proposed Project would be required to implement a SWPPP (included as
PPP WQ-1) during construction that would implement BMPs, such as the use of silt
fencing, fiber rolls, and gravel bags, that would ensure that runoff would not
substantially increase during construction, and flooding on or off-site would not occur.
As described previously, after development of the Project, the site would have 14%
(0.47 acres) pervious area and 86% (2.91 acres) impervious area. The proposed
Project would increase the overall impervious footprint by 84.5% (2.86 acres) However,
the Project would implement an operational WQMP (as included by PPP WQ-2) that
would install an onsite storm drain system that would include a drywell system and
perforated storm drain piping for infiltration. Thus, the Project would not increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff, and flooding on or offsite would not occur. Impacts
would be less than significant.
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
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in the previous responses, the proposed
Project would be required to implement a SWPPP (included as PPP WQ-1) during
construction that would implement BMPs, such as the use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, and
gravel bags, that would ensure that runoff would not substantially increase during
construction, and that pollutants would not discharge from the Project site, which would
reduce potential impacts to drainage systems and water quality to a less than significant
level.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
70
As described previously, after development of the Project, the site would have 14%
(0.47 acres) pervious area and 86% (2.91 acres) impervious area. However, the Project
would implement an operational WQMP (included as PPP WQ-2) that would install an
onsite storm drain system that would include a drywell system with a filtration system
and perforated storm drain piping for infiltration. Thus, operation of the proposed
Project would not substantially increase stormwater runoff, and pollutants would be
filtered onsite. Impacts related to drainage systems and polluted runoff would be less
than significant with implementation of the existing requirements, which would be
verified during the plan check and permitting process.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in Zone A per the Federal
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel
06037C1675F (FEMA 2022). The site is identified as Zone A because it is located in an
area with a 1% annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance of flooding over a 30-
year period. Thus, the proposed Project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and
impacts would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project
inundation?
No Impact. The Project site is located in Zone A per the Federal Emergency Management
Administration (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel 06037C1675F (FEMA 2022). Thus,
the Project would not be located in a flood hazard zone, which would result in release of pollutants
due to inundation of the site.
A seiche is a surface wave created when an inland body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake
activity. The site also is not subject to flooding hazards associated with a seiche because there are
no large body of surface water located near the Project site to result in effects related to a seiche,
which could result in release in pollutants due to inundation of the site.
The Pacific Ocean is located over 23 miles southwest of the Project site; consequently, there is no
potential for the Project site to be inundated by a tsunami that could release pollutants. In addition,
the Project site is flat and not located near any steep hillsides; therefore, there is no potential for
the site to be adversely affected by mudflow. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would
not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow that could release pollutants due to inundation of the Project site. No
impact would occur.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
No Impact. As described previously, the Project would be required to have an approved SWPPP,
which would include construction BMPs to minimize the potential for construction related sources of
pollution. For operations, the proposed Project would be required to implement source control BMPs
to minimize the introduction of pollutants; and treatment control BMPs to treat runoff. With
implementation of the operational source and treatment control BMPs that would be required by
the City during the Project permitting and approval process (pursuant to PPP WQ-1 and PPP WQ-
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
71
2), potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and implementation of
the proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.
As described previously, water supplies are provided by the California American Water Los
Angeles County District that extracts water from the Central Basin. Groundwater pumping is
regulated through a Basin Production Percentage to ensure the groundwater supply is sustainable.
In addition, the Project would not extract groundwater. Thus, the proposed Project would not result
in the obstruction or conflict with a groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP WQ-1: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project
developer shall have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a Qualified
SWPPP Developer (QSD) in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 13.16 and the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Storm Water Permit Order No. R4-2012-0175 (MS4 Permit). The SWPPP shall incorporate
all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other NPDES regulations to limit the potential
of erosion and polluted runoff during construction activities. Project contractors shall be required to
ensure compliance with the SWPPP and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by the
City of Rosemead staff to confirm compliance.
PPP WQ-2: Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project
applicant shall have a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) approved by the City for
implementation. The Project shall comply with the City’s Municipal Chapter 13.16 and the Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements in effect for the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) at the time of grading permit to control discharges of sediments and other
pollutants during operations of the Project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to hydrology and water quality are required.
Sources
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2022). National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL)
Viewer. Map #06037C1675F. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/mscprintb_gpserver/j299a67
263b93496db1b7e5a6b3385648/scratch/FIRMETTE_b55c63a1-bff0-459b-8eda-
e45c330efd55.pdf
Preliminary Hydrology Study, 2022. Prepared by C&V Consulting Inc. (Appendix H).
Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan, 2022. Prepared by C&V Consulting, Inc. (Appendix I).
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
72
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11. 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 mitigating an environmental effect?
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The physical division of an established community could occur if a major road were built
through an established community or neighborhood, or if a major development was built which was
inconsistent with the land uses in the community such that it divided the community. The environmental
effects caused by such could include lack of a, or disruption of, access to services, schools, or
shopping areas. It could also include the creation of blighted buildings or areas due to the division
of the community.
The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped and is surrounded by a roadway to the south
followed by single-family residential development and a church, SCE powerlines, a plant nursery,
and Walnut Grove Avenue followed by single-family residential to the west, single-family
residential and a plant nursery to the north, and single-family residential to the east. The proposed
Project would develop the site to provide 37 two-story dwelling units which are consistent with the
existing residential development to the east and south of the site across Mission Drive. Therefore,
the change of the Project site from vacant and undeveloped to residential would not physically
divide an established community. In addition, the Project would not change roadways, or install any
infrastructure that would result in a physical division. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in
impacts related to physical division of an established community, and no impact would result.
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. As described previously, the Project site is located adjacent to
Mission Drive, residential development, a plant nursery, and a church. The Project would develop
the Project site to provide 37 new two-story dwelling units, which would be similar to the residential
uses that are located adjacent to, and across the street from the site.
General Plan
As the site is within an area developed with single-family residences, the site has a General Plan
land use designation of Low Density Residential. The Low Density Residential land use designation
is characterized by low-density residential neighborhoods consisting primarily of detached single-
family dwellings on individual lots with a maximum permitted density of 7 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
73
the site to Medium Density Residential that allows up to 12 dwelling units per acre. The General
Plan Land Use Element states that the Medium Density Residential land use allows for housing types
such as single-family detached homes on smaller lots, duplexes, and attached units. As the Project
would develop two-story dwelling units in the Medium Density Residential designation at a density
of 11 dwelling units per acre, it would be consistent with the proposed land use designations, and
the proposed change in land uses would be less than significant. In addition, the Project complies
with the policies set forth in the City’s General Plan as shown in Table LU-1, below.
Table LU-1: Project Consistency with General Plan Policies
City’s General Plan Policies Project Consistency
Policy 1.4: Through the Conditional Use Permit process,
Design Review process, residential design guidelines, or
zoning enforcement, regulate new and large residential
structures that compromise neighborhood quality
Consistent. The Project has been designed to be
consistent with the City’s development standards and
reviewed by the City’s planning department to ensure
development standards have been met.
Policy 1.5: Require that new single-family residential
construction, additions, and renovations be designed to
protect the privacy of adjacent residential properties
and the quality of established neighborhoods.
Consistent. As mentioned above, the Project has been
designed to be consistent with the City’s development
standards and reviewed by the City’s planning
department to ensure development standards have been
met.
Policy 1.6: Where the housing stock and neighborhood
design are of high quality, maintain and provide the
foundation for strong neighborhood interaction, and
ensure that the bulk and mass of new single-family
residential buildings or additions be of the same scale as
surrounding units within established residential
neighborhoods.
Consistent. The proposed Project would develop an
underutilized parcel and develop 37 two-story dwelling
units that would be similar in size and scale to the
surrounding residences.
Policy 1.7: Foster housing stock and neighborhood
revitalization, renovation, and good site/architectural
design.
Consistent. The Project would develop 37 two-story
dwelling units that would have a Spanish Colonial or
Hacienda architectural style.
Policy 1.8: Require that new single-family units utilize
detailed architectural articulations to promote the visual
character of neighborhoods and comply with the
adopted single family design guidelines.
Consistent. As discussed above, the Project would
include Spanish Colonial and Hacienda architectural
styles. Six color schemes would be utilized which include
shades of grey, blue, and brown. The Project would
comply with the City’s design standards.
Zoning
The Project site is currently zoned as R-1 Single-Family Residential, and the Project would change
the site’s zoning from R-1 Single-Family Residential to P-D Planned Development to allow for the
development of the dwelling units.
The P-D zone does not have a maximum building height and does not have a front or side setback
when adjoining residential, though a 5 ft or 10% of lot width setback is required. When adjoining
residential, there is a 5 ft or 10% of lot width front setback and the Project is required to adopt
the side setback of the zone it is abutting. As described previously, in Table AES-1, the proposed
Project meets or is within the P-D zoning requirements for building heights and setbacks.
Regarding lot size and coverage, the P-D zone allows a minimum lot area of one acre and maximum
density of 12 dwelling units per acre. As shown in Table AES-1, the Project site is 3.38 net acres
which exceeds the net acre minimum. The Project proposes to have a density of 11 dwelling units
per acre which is less than the maximum. Thus, the Project site and proposed Project would meet the
P-D lot size and coverage standards Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any
applicable zoning regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
74
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
There are no impact reducing Plans, Programs, or Policies related to land use and planning that are
applicable to the Project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to land use and planning are required.
Sources
City of Rosemead. Municipal Code. Available:
https://library.municode.com/ca/rosemead/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_TIT13
PUSE_CH13.16STWAMA_13.16.010DE
City of Rosemead. General Plan. Available: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10034989/File/Gov/City%20Departments/Com
munity%20Development/Planning/Rosemead.pdf
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
75
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12. 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?
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. According to the Special Report 209 from the California Geological Survey, the City
of Rosemead is not included in a list of lead agencies in the San Gabriel Valley P-C Region with
active mine operations, designated lands, or lands classified as Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2)
within its jurisdiction (CGS 2010). Therefore, development of the site would not 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 would occur.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on the general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. As described above, the Project site is not located within a region of known mineral
significance. The site has a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential, is in an urban and
developed area, and does not support mineral extraction activities onsite. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of locally important mineral resources, and
impacts would not occur.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
There are no impact reducing Plans, Programs, or Policies related to mineral resources that are
applicable to the Project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to mineral resources are required.
Sources
California Geological Survey (CGS 2010), Special Report 209, Update of Mineral Land
Classification for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Gabriel Valley
Production-Consumption Region, Los Angeles County, California, 2010.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
76
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13. 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 or public use
airport, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels?
The discussion below is based on the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis prepared by LSA, Inc.
(Noise 2022) (Appendix J).
Noise Element of the General Plan
The City of Rosemead General Plan addresses noise in its Noise Element (General Plan 2010). The
Noise Element contains goals and policies for noise control and abatement in the City. General noise
goals for Rosemead aim to attain a healthier and quieter environment for all citizens while
maintaining a reasonable level of economic progress and development. The City, consistent with the
California Office of Planning and Research, has established land use compatibility guidelines for
determining acceptable noise levels for specified land uses as shown in Table N-1. These land use
compatibility guidelines are intended to be an advisory resource when considering changes in land
use and policies, such as zoning modifications. The Issues, Goals, and Policies as well as the
Implementation Actions in the City’s General Plan Noise Element are designed to provide noise-
compatible land use relationships by establishing noise standards utilized for design and siting
purposes and minimize noise impacts from significant noise generators. The following goals and
policies are applicable to the proposed Project:
Goal 1: Effective incorporation of noise considerations into land use planning decisions.
• Policy 1.1: Ensure compliance with standards for interior and exterior noise established
within the Noise Element and Zoning Code.
• Policy 1.4: Encourage acoustical design in new construction
• Policy 1.5: Require sound walls to be constructed in designated mixed-use districts where
noise-sensitive land uses are located on adjacent properties.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
77
Goal 3: Effective implementation of measures to control non-transportation noise impacts.
• Action 1.2: Incorporate noise reduction features during site planning to mitigate anticipated
noise impacts on affected noise sensitive land uses. The noise contours, illustrated on the
Existing Noise Contours Map, identify areas within the City exposed to noise levels greater
than 60dB CNEL and shall be used to identify locations of potential conflict. Require
acoustical analyses, as appropriate, for proposed residential development within the 60 dB
CNEL or higher contour. New developments will be permitted only if appropriate mitigation
measures are included.
• Action 1.3: Enforce provisions of the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24) that
specify that indoor noise levels for multi-family residential living spaces shall not exceed 45
dB CNEL. The standard is defined as the combined effect of all noise sources, and is
implemented when existing or future exterior noise levels exceed 60 dB CNEL. Title 24
further requires that the standard be applied to all new hotels, motels, apartment houses,
and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings. The City will additionally apply
the standard to single-family dwellings and condominium conversion Projects.
Table N-1: Municipal Code Exterior Permitted Noise Levels
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
78
Source: General Plan, 2010.
Municipal Code
Chapter 8.36.030 of the City’s Municipal Code limits construction and demolition activities to
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, including Saturday. Construction
activities should not take place at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. No person shall operate
or allow the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, or alteration
or demolition work outside of these hours to prevent noise disturbances.
Chapter 8.36.060 of the City’s Municipal Code, Noise Standards, establishes limits on non-impulsive
noise where no person shall maintain, create, operate, or cause noise on private property to not
exceed the noise standards shown in Table D. The standards are applicable to all receptor
properties within a designated noise zone. This section also establishes an allowable interior noise
level of 45 dBA at all residential receptors during anytime of the day.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
79
Table N-2: Municipal Code Exterior Permitted Noise Levels
Noise Zone Type of Land Use
(Receptor Property)
Time Interval Allowable Exterior Noise
Level (dBA)
I Single-, double- or
multiple family residential
Daytime 60
Nighttime 45
II Commercial Daytime 65
Nighttime 60
III Industrial or manufacturing Anytime 70
Source: Noise and Vibration Analysis, 2022 (Appendix J)
Federal Transit Administration
The construction noise threshold from Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2018), identifies
a significant construction noise impact if construction noise exceeds the thresholds exceed the dBA
in Table N-3 at the nearby sensitive receivers (e.g., residential, etc.).
Table N-3: Municipal Code Exterior Permitted Noise Levels
Land Use Daytime 1-hour Leq (dBA) Nighttime 1-hour Leq (dBA)
Residential 90 80
Commercial 100 100
Industrial 100 100
Source: Noise and Vibration Analysis, 2022 (Appendix J)
Vibration standards included in the FTA manual are used in this analysis for ground-borne vibration
impacts on human annoyance and potential damage. Table F provides the criteria for assessing the
potential for interference or annoyance from vibration levels in a building. The criteria for
annoyance impacts resulting from ground-borne vibration and noise are based on the average
vibration levels during construction. Table N-4 provides the criteria for assessing the potential for
damage from vibration levels generated during construction to surrounding structures. Table N-5
below states the construction vibration damage criteria from the FTA.
Table N-4: Interpretation of Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis
Land Use Max Lv (VdB) Description of Use
Workshop 90 Vibration that is distinctly felt.
Appropriate for workshops and
similar areas not as sensitive to
vibration
Office 84 Vibration can be felt. Appropriate
for offices and similar areas not as
sensitive to vibration.
Residential Day 78 Vibration that is barely felt.
Adequate for computer equipment
and low-power optical microscopes.
Residential Night and Operating
Rooms
72 Vibration is not felt, but ground-
borne noise may be audible inside
quiet rooms. Suitable for medium-
power microscopes and other
equipment of low sensitivity.
Source: Noise and Vibration Analysis, 2022 (Appendix J)
Table N-5: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.50
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
80
Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30
Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12
Source: Noise and Vibration Analysis, 2022 (Appendix J)
Existing Noise Levels
As detailed in the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix F), to identify the existing ambient
noise level environment, two 24-hour noise level measurements and one short-term noise level
measurement were taken on the Project site (shown on Figure 9) between June 21, 2022 and June
22, 2022. The measured sound levels in dBA have been used to calculate the minimum and maximum
Leq averaged over 1-hour intervals. Table N-6 also shows the hourly noise levels (Leq) and daily
noise levels (CNEL), based on the entire measurement time. As shown in Table N-6, existing noise
levels on the Project site range from 50.6 to 57.0 dBA CNEL.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
81
Table N-6: Summary of 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements
Location Site Description Daytime Noise
Levels (dBA Leq) Evening Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime Noise
Levels(dBA Leq) Average Daily
Noise Levels
(dBA CNEL)
LT-1 Southeastern
corner of Project
site, on a fence
along the
backyard of
8623 Mission
Drive.
50.9-62.5 49.2-56.1 42.6-52.1 57.0
LT-2 Western corner
of Project site,
bordering a
power line near
a fence next to
a power line
tower.
47.6-59.8 45.4-54.3 41.9-50.7 55.2
ST-1 Northeast corner
of Project site,
south of 8612
Zerelda Street.
43.0-55.2 40.8-49.7 37.3-46.1 50.6
Source: Noise and Vibration Analysis, 2022 (Appendix J)
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?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Construction
The construction activities for the proposed Project are anticipated to include demolition of the
partially paved driveway, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and
architectural coating. Construction of the proposed Project would occur over an 11-month period.
Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be a function
of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land
uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Noise levels generated by heavy
construction equipment have the potential to range from approximately 73 dBA to 95 dBA at 50
feet in distance, as shown on Table N-7.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
82
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
83
Figure 9: Noise Measurement Locations
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
84
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
85
Table N-7: Construction Activity Noise Levels at 50 Feet
Equipment Description
Acoustical Use
Factor1 (percent)
Maximum Noise Level
at 50 Ft2 (Lmax)
Auker Drill Rig 20 84
Backhoes 40 80
Compactor (Ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Cranes 16 85
Dozer 40 85
Dump truck 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flat Bed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front-end Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Impact Pile Drivers 20 95
Jackhammers 20 85
Paver 50 77
Pickup Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pumps 50 77
Rock Drills 20 85
Rollers 20 85
Scrapers 40 85
Tractors 40 84
Trencher 50 80
Welder 40 73
Source: Noise and Vibration Analysis (Appendix F)
Per the City’s Noise Ordinance, the Project would comply with the construction hours specified which
states that the construction activities are allowed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday, excluding Sunday and holidays. The proposed Project’s construction
activities would occur pursuant to these regulations, which is included as PPP NOI-1 and would be
detailed in the construction permits. Therefore, Project construction would be compliant with the
City’s noise related standards and impacts related to standards would be less than significant.
Neither the City’s General Plan nor Municipal Code establish numeric maximum acceptable
construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers, which would allow for a quantified
determination of what CEQA constitutes a substantial temporary or periodic noise increase. Thus,
the construction noise thresholds from the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2018),
have been utilized, which identifies a significant construction noise impact if construction noise
exceeds 90 dBA at sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are the
single-family residences located to the east, approximately 115 feet from the property line.
Modeling of the construction noise to the location of the existing sensitive receptors is summarized
in Table N-8, which shows that construction noise at the closest sensitive receptors is anticipated to
range from 69 dBA Leq to 81 dBA Leq, which is less than the 90 dBA threshold. Therefore, noise
impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the construction noise over the 11-month period
would be temporary in nature as the operation of each piece of construction equipment would not
be constant throughout the construction day, and equipment would be turned off when not in use.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
86
The typical operating cycle for a piece of construction equipment involves one or two minutes of full
power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings.
Table N-8: Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Sensitive Receptors
Receptor (Location) Composite Noise Level
(dBA Leq) at 50 feet
Distance (feet) Composite Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Residences (East) 88 115 81
Residences (West) 350 71
Residences (North) 350 71
Residences (South) 430 69
Source: Noise and Vibration Analysis (Appendix F)
Overall, as temporary construction activity would occur in compliance with the City’s regulations and
would be less than the noise level threshold at existing sensitive receptors, impacts related to
construction noise would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed Project would result in the operation of 37 two-story dwelling units. Potential noise
impacts associated with the Project would be from Project-generated vehicular traffic on the nearby
roadways. In addition, the proposed development would be adjacent to Mission Drive and in close
proximity to Walnut Grove Avenue, which may create exterior and interior noise levels in excess
of City standards at the proposed residences.
Once the proposed residences are constructed and inhabited, noise levels generated at the
project site would occur from stationary equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) units that would be installed for the new development, internal street and
driveway vehicle movements, trash removal activity, and activity at outdoor gathering areas.
Typical noise levels from onsite operations at 50 feet from the noise source include the following:
• Air Conditioning Unit: 54.4 dBA
• Trash Enclosure Activity: 49.0 dBA
• Parking Lot Vehicle Movements: 33.5 dBA
• Outdoor Community Recreation Activity: 48.7 dBA
Typically, air conditioning units and trash enclosures are located away from sensitive receivers and
shielded to ensure that noise from operation of the units and trash pickup does not have the potential
to result in an impact. The project would not result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise
levels in excess of standards established in the City Noise Ordinance or the General Plan Noise
Element.
Vehicular Noise. Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust and
tires. The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the
speed of traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. The proposed Project is a
residential Project that would not result in a substantial number of truck trips and the proposed
Project would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway so the proposed Project’s potential
offsite noise impacts have been focused on the noise impacts associated with the change of volume
of traffic that would occur with development of the proposed Project.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
87
The trip generation prepared for the Project determined that the Project would generate 349
average daily trips. The expected traffic volume on the adjacent segment of Mission drive could
be as low as 15,000 (City of Rosemead General Plan 2010). The results of the Noise Analysis
determined that an increase of approximately 0.1 dBA CNEL is expected along the streets adjacent
to the Project site. A noise increase of less than 1 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear.
Therefore, the traffic noise increase in the vicinity of the Project site resulting from the proposed
Project would be less than significant.
Exterior Noise. The City has a 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard. Based on the monitoring
results shown in Table N-6, the existing measured noise levels at the Project site closest to Mission
Drive, approximately 95 feet away from Mission Drive centerline, is 57.0 dBA CNEL. Based on the
Project site plan, the rear yards of units 1-4 and 37 are approximately 45 feet away from Mission
Drive centerline, resulting in estimated noise levels approaching 62 dBA, without accounting for
shielding provided by the proposed 6ft wall, which would reduce the noise levels by 5 dBA or
more, resulting in noise levels below 60 dBA. Thus, Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
Interior Noise. As described in the Noise Impact Analysis, per the California Code of Regulations
and the City’s Implementation Actions, an interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL or less is
required for all noise-sensitive rooms. Based on the expected future exterior noise levels at the
façades of the lots closest to Mission Drive approaching 62 dBA CNEL, a minimum noise reduction
of 17 dBA would be required. Based on reference information from transmission loss test reports
for various Milgard windows (Milgard 2008), standard building construction along with standard
windows, typically in the STC 25- 28 range, a reduction of 25 dBA or more would be achieved
with windows in a closed position. With a reduction of 25 dBA or more, interior noise levels would
remain below the City’s interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL. The Project includes a HVAC
system for all unit so that windows can remained closed.
Thus, the Project would not generation 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. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City does not have quantified
vibration standards applicable to the proposed Project. However, the FTA provides criteria for
assessing the potential for interference or annoyance from vibration levels in a building as shown
in Table N-4. Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending
on the equipment used on the site. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations
that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings in the vicinity of
the construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible
effects at the low levels to slight damage at the highest levels. Table N-9 provides vibration levels
for particular construction activities at a distance of 25 feet.
Table N-9: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment at 25 Feet
Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second)
Approximate Vibration Level
(Lv)at 25 feet
Pile Driver
(Impact), Typical 0.644 104
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
88
Pile Driver
(Sonic), Typical 0.170 93
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix F).
The primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a pile driver.
Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest offsite sensitive receptors
(single-family residences to the east) would be 0.995 inch per second PPV when construction occurs
at the property line, which would exceed the 0.2 inch per second PPV threshold detailed above.
Therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is included to prohibit the use of heavy equipment within 15
feet of existing residences to the north and west to ensure that vibration levels are below the 0.2
PPV (in/sec) threshold. Thus, with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, impacts related to
construction vibration would be 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 or public use
airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive
noise levels?
No Impact. There are no airports within two miles of the Project site. The closest airport is the San
Gabriel Valley Airport that is located 2.6 miles east of the Project site. Similarly, the Project site is
not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not expose people residing or working
in the Project area to excessive noise levels related to an airstrip. No impacts related to airport or
airstrip noise would occur from implementation of the Project.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP NOI-1: Construction Hours. Per Municipal Code Chapter 8.36, construction and demolition
activities may only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, including
Saturday. Construction activities should not take place at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday.
No person shall operate or allow the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction,
drilling, repair, or alteration or demolition work outside of these hours to prevent noise disturbances.
PPP NOI-2: Best Construction Practices. In addition to compliance with the City’s Municipal Code
allowed hours of construction of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, excluding
Sunday and holidays, the following recommendations would reduce construction noise to the extent
feasible:
• The Project construction contractor should equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile,
with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers, consistent with manufacturer’s
standards.
• The Project construction contractor should locate staging areas away from off-site sensitive
uses during the later phases of Project development.
• The Project construction contractor should place all stationary construction equipment so that
emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project site whenever
feasible.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
89
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Construction Vibration. Project plans and specifications shall include
the requirement that that operation of any heavy equipment shall be prohibited within 15 feet of
existing residences to the north and east. If heavy equipment is necessary within 15 feet of existing
structures, the following measures shall be implemented.
• Identify structures that could be affected by ground-borne vibration and would be located
within 15 feet of where heavy construction equipment would be used. This task shall be
conducted by a qualified structural engineer as approved by the City’s Director of
Community Development or designee.
• Develop a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan for approval by the City’s
Director of Community Development, or designee, to identify structures where monitoring
would be conducted; set up a vibration monitoring schedule; define structure-specific
vibration limits; and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to
document before and after construction conditions. Construction contingencies such as
alternative methods or equipment that would generate lower vibration levels would be
identified for when vibration levels approached the limits.
• At a minimum, monitor vibration during initial demolition activities. Monitoring results may
indicate the need for more intensive measurements if vibration levels approach the 0.2 PPV
(in/sec) threshold.
• When vibration levels approach the 0.2 PPV (in/sec) limit, suspend construction and
implement contingencies identified in the approved vibration monitoring and construction
contingency plan to either lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures.
Sources
Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis prepared by LSA. (Noise 2022) (Appendix F).
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
90
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14. 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?
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would construct 37 two-story dwelling units on the Project
site. The California Department of Finance (CDF) data details that the City of Rosemead had a
residential population of 50,025 and 15,001 residential units in 2022. Of these, 11,257 (57
percent) are single-family detached units, and 1,437 are attached units (9.6 percent). The CDF
data details that 14,505 of the units are occupied (households) and that the vacancy rate within
the City is 3.3 percent. In addition, it is estimated that the City has an average of 3.45 persons per
household.
Based on this information, the proposed 37 two-story dwelling units would result in an increase of
approximately 128 new residents. The addition of 128 new residents would represent a population
increase of 1.2 percent and the new housing units would result in a 0.256 percent increase in
residential units within the City. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
Demographics and Growth Forecast (SCAG 2020) anticipates a City population of 60,300 in year
2045, which is an increase of 10,275 persons over the year 2022 population; and forecasts 16,500
households in the City in year 2045, which is an increase of 1,499 residential units over the number
of units in 2022. The 37 residential units developed by the proposed Project would equate to 2.47
percent of the forecasted growth in residential units, which is a limited amount of the Projected
growth in residential housing. Thus, the Project would not directly result in substantial unplanned
growth.
Also, the proposed Project is located in an urbanized residential area of the City and is surrounded
by residential, park, plant nursery, and church uses and is already served by the existing roadways
and infrastructure systems. No infrastructure would be extended or constructed to serve areas
beyond the Project site, and indirect impacts related to growth would not occur from implementation
of the proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts related to inducement of unplanned
population growth, either directly or indirectly, would be less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
91
No Impact. The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped and does not contain any housing.
The Project would develop the site to construct 37 two-story dwelling units. No people or housing
would be displaced by implementation of the proposed Project. Conversely, housing would be
developed by the Project. Thus, no impact would occur.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
There are no impact reducing Plans, Programs, or Policies related to population and housing are
applicable to the Project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to population and housing are required.
Sources
California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the
State, 2020-2022. Accessed: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-
population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/
Southern California Association of Governments Demographics and Growth Forecast. Table 14
Jurisdiction-Level Growth Forecast, September 2020. Accessed:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-
growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
92
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15. 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?
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of 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:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Fire Protection – Less than Significant Impact. The Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) currently
provides services to the Project site and surrounding area. LAFD has two fire stations that provide
services to the Project site, including fire prevention and suppression, emergency medical services,
technical rescue, and hazardous materials response. The closest fire station to the Project site is Fire
Station 42, located at 9319 E. Valley Blvd, which is approximately 1.1 mile southeast of the site.
Fire Station 4, located at 2644 N San Gabriel Blvd, which is approximately 2.4 miles southwest of
the Project site. Station 4 responded to 3,218 incidents in fiscal year 2021-2022 with an arrival
time within five minutes for 48.34% of calls. Station 42 responded to 2,815 incidents in fiscal year
2021-2022 with an arrival time within five minutes for 45.01% of calls.1
1 Data received from Gina Cortez, Los Angeles County Fire Department Planning Division
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
93
The proposed Project would develop 37 residential dwelling units. Implementation of the Project
would be required to adhere to California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of
Regulations) included in Section 8.24.010 of the City’s Municipal Code, which regulates fire-resistant
construction, emergency planning, fire protection system, and appropriate emergency access
throughout the site. As part of the permitting process, the Project plans would be reviewed by the
City’s Building and Safety Division to ensure that the fire protection requirements are met.
Due to the small increase in onsite people that would occur from implementation of the Project, an
incremental increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services would occur.
However, the increase in residents onsite is limited (128 residents) and would not increase demands
such that the existing two fire stations would not be able to accommodate servicing the Project in
addition to its existing commitments. Provision of a new or physically altered fire station would not
be required that could cause environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection
services from the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Police Protection - Less than Significant Impact. The Los Angeles County Sheriff Department (LASD)
provides policing services for the City of Rosemead. The Temple City Station is located at 8838 E
Las Tunas Drive, approximately 1.6 miles northeast of the Project site. Approximately 176 sworn
and 33 non-sworn support personnel are assigned to the City2. Based on the CDF population data
for the City in January, 2022 of 50,511, the City has approximately 3.5 sworn officers per 1,000
residents.
Development of the proposed 37 residential dwelling units would result in an incremental increase
in demands on law enforcement services. However, the increase would not be significant when
compared to the current demand levels. As described previously, the residential population of the
Project site at full occupancy would be approximately 128 residents and based on the Police
Department’s staffing of 3.5 officers per thousand population, the proposed Project would require
0.45 percent of an additional officer.
Since the need by the Project is less than one full-time officer at the existing staffing ratio, the
Project would not require the construction or expansion of the City’s existing policing facilities. Thus,
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or expanded facilities
would not occur. Thus, impacts related to police services would be less than significant.
Schools – Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in Rosemead School District (K-8)
and El Monte Union High School District (9-12). The public schools that serve the Project site are:
• Emma W. Shuey Elementary School (K-6)
• Muscatel Middle School (7-8)
• Rosemead High School (9-12)
2 Data received from Deputy Marshall Los Angeles Sheriff Department
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
94
Table PS-1: School Capacity and Project Generated Students
School 2021-2022
Enrollment
2020-2021
Enrollment1
2019-
2020
2018-
2019
2017-
2018
2016-
2017
2015-
2016
Emma W.
Shuey
Elementary
School
514 460 486 491 477 498 516
Muscatel
Middle
School
555 569 556 570 621 660 654
Rosemead
High School
1,704 1,787 1,806 1,844 1,847 1,813 1,805
1 Source: California Department of Education, Accessed: https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
The State Office of Public School Construction utilizes a student yield factor of 0.7 students per
dwelling unit. Using this factor, the proposed 37 residences could result in approximately 26 new
students that would range in age from elementary through high school. The 26 students would range
in age from elementary school to high school. As shown in Table PS-1 above, Muscatel Middle
School and Rosemead High School are operating at less capacity than previous years. Rosemead
School District is currently at 78% of its capacity with room to accommodate 892 more students.
Thus, the addition of 26 students would be accommodated by the schools existing capacities. In
addition, as required by all Projects within the City, the proposed Project is required to pay School
Mitigation Impact fees, as included by PPP PS-1. Therefore, impacts related to schools would be
less than significant.
Parks – Less than Significant Impact. The City of Rosemead has approximately 43.25 acres of
parkland. In addition, the Whittier Narrows Recreational Area is immediately southeast of the City
and provides an additional 1,092 acres of parkland. Of this parkland, 19.5 acres are within 1 mile
of the Project site.
• Guess Park located which is approximately 300 feet from the Project site. This park is 0.25
acre and consists of a greenbelt.
• Sally Tanner Park which is approximately 0.4 mile from the Project site. This park is 1.25
acres and consists of a playground, pathways, benches, and picnic tables.
• Rosemead Park which is approximately 0.7 mile from the Project site. This park is 18 acres
and consists of a skate park, picnic tables, a swimming pool, and playground.
The Project would develop 37 residential dwelling units and 1,664 SF of central common open
space for use by residents. There’s an additional 15,654 SF of common open space throughout the
Project site that would be used for active recreation. Thus, the Project proposes a total of 17,318
SF of open space recreation area on the site for use by residents. As described previously,
approximately 128 new residents would occur from the proposed Project. Due to the limited
increase in population from implementation of the Project and provision of onsite open space and
recreational facilities, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of any existing
park facility. Thus, substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
expanded facilities would not occur.
In addition, the impacts of development of the proposed 17,318 square foot open space recreation
area on the site are considered part of the impacts of the proposed Project as a whole and are
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
95
analyzed throughout the various sections of this MND. For example, activities such as excavation,
grading, and construction as required for the park are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation Sections.
Other Public Facilities – Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would develop the
Project site with 37 residential dwelling units within an area that already contains residential land
uses. The additional residences would result in a limited incremental increase in the need for
additional services, such as public libraries and post offices, etc. Because the Project area is already
served by other services and the Project would result in a limited increase in population, the Project
would not result in the need for new or physically altered facilities to provide other services, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP PS-1: School Fees. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide
payment of the appropriate fees set forth by the applicable school districts related to the funding
of school facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to public services are required.
Sources
California Department of Education Data Quest. Accessed:
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dataquest.asp
City of Rosemead Municipal Code. Accessed:
https://library.municode.com/ca/rosemead/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_TIT13
PUSE_CH13.16STWAMA_13.16.010DE
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Temple Sheriff’s Station. Accessed:
https://lasd.org/temple/
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
96
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16. RECREATION.
a) Would the Project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the Project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would develop 37 two-story dwelling units and 17,298
square feet of common open space that would be provided throughout the development for
recreational use by residents. Therefore, some of the Project’s park and recreational demand would
be met by the provision of the onsite facilities. The City currently has approximately 43.25 acres
of park and recreation facilities. Additionally, Whittier Narrows, a regional park, is located just
outside Rosemead City limits in unincorporated Los Angeles County and is greater than 1,000 acres
in size. The Project site is within one mile of 20.25 acres of parkland including Guess Park located
directly east of the site, across Walnut Grove Avenue. As described previously in the population
discussion, the approximately 128 new residents would equate to approximately 3 new residents
per acre of park and recreational area that is within one mile of the site. Due to the limited increase
in population from implementation of the Project, provision of onsite open space and recreational
facilities, and the amount of existing recreation facilities near the site, impacts related to the
increase in the use of existing parks and recreational facilities, such that physical deterioration of
the facility would be accelerated would be less than significant.
b) Include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. As described above, the Project includes 17,298 square feet of open
space recreation area. The impacts of development of the park are considered part of the impacts
of the proposed Project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of this MND.
For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the recreation
area are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation
Sections.
Also, as described in the previous response, the approximately 128 new residents would equate to
approximately 3 new residents per existing acre of park and recreational area that is within one
mile of the site. Thus, the Project would have a limited increase in use of existing public recreation
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
97
facilities and would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities that
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As a result, impacts would be less than
significant.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
There are no impact reducing Plans, Programs, or Policies related to recreation are applicable to
the Project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to recreation are required.
Sources
City of Rosemead General Plan. Accessed: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10034989/File/Gov/City%20Departments/Com
munity%20Development/Planning/Rosemead.pdf
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
98
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17. 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?
The discussion below is based on the Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis
prepared EPD Solutions, Inc. (Traffic 2022) (Appendix K)
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site would develop 3.378 acres of land with a new
residential development that would provide haul truck access during construction and vehicular
access during operation. Access would be provided via Mission Drive. The Project proposes a 20-
foot-wide entry driveway and 20-foot-wide exit driveway along Mission Drive.
Roadway: Construction activities associated with the Project would generate vehicular trips from
construction workers traveling to and from the Project site, delivery of construction supplies and
import materials to, and export of debris from, the Project site. However, these activities would only
occur for an estimated time period of 11 months. The increase of trips during construction activities
would be limited and would not exceed the number of daily operational trips described below.
The short-term vehicle trips from construction of the Project would generate less than significant
operational impacts to roadways.
Construction activities of the Project would generate vehicular trips from construction workers
traveling to and from Project site, delivery of construction supplies and import materials to, and
export of debris from the Project site. However, these activities would only occur for a period of
11 months. Construction of the proposed Project would require 56 haul trips that would occur over
the 11-month period.
Bicycle: The Project site and surrounding area do not currently support bicycle infrastructure.
However, Mission Drive and Walnut Grove Avenue were defined as potential new bike lanes in the
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
99
City’s General Plan. The proposed Project would not alter or conflict with plans to implement new
bike lanes along Mission Drive or Walnut Grove Avenue.
Pedestrian Facilities: As previously described, the Project site and surrounding roadways have
existing sidewalks.. New sidewalk improvements would be included along Mission Drive to facilitate
Project design and access. Therefore, the Project would result in no impacts to pedestrian facilities.
The Project would be consistent with the City of Rosemead General Plan Circulation Element and
would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
b) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact. Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed by Governor Brown in 2013 and
required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to
provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating Transportation impacts. SB 743 specified that the new
criteria should promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal
transportation networks and a diversity of land uses. In response, Section 15064.3 was added to
the CEQA Guidelines that became effective on July 1, 2020 and requires that Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) be evaluated for impacts and provides lead agencies with the discretion to choose
the most appropriate methodology and thresholds for its evaluation.
VMT Screening Thresholds
The City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines provides VMT screening thresholds to identify Projects
that would be considered to have a less than significant impact on VMT and therefore could be
screened out from further analysis. If a Project meets one of the following criteria as shown below,
then the VMT impact of the Project would be considered less than significant and no further analysis
would be required.
1. The project is in a Transit Priority Area (TPA).
2. The project is in a low VMT area.
3. The project proposes one of the following local-serving land uses:
• Local-serving retail less than 50,000 sf in size, including:
o Gas stations
o Banks
o Restaurants
o Shopping Center
• Local serving K-12 school
• Local park
• Daycare centers
• Local-serving hotel (e.g., non-destination hotel)
• Student housing projects on or adjacent to a college campus
• Local-serving assembly use (places of worship, community organizations)
• Community institutions (public libraries, fire stations, local government)
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
100
• Affordable, supportive, or transitional housing
• Assisted living facilities
• Senior housing (as defined by Housing and Urban Development)
• Local serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in the
• RTP/SCS (Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy)
• Project generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips. This generally corresponds to the
following “typical” development potentials:
o 11 single family housing units
o 16 multi-family, condominiums, or townhouse housing units
o 10,000 SF of office
o 15,000 SF of light industrial
o 63,000 SF of warehousing
o 79,000 SF of high cube transload and short-term storage warehouse
• Public parking garages and public parking lots
A portion of the Project site is located within a TPA, however the entire site is not within the TPA.
Therefore, the Project does not satisfy Screening Criteria 1. Screening Criteria 2 defines low VMT
areas as traffic analysis zones (TAZs) with a total daily VMT/service Population that is 15% less
than the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) baseline. If the proposed Project
is residential, the Project is considered to screen out if it is located within the Low VMT areas. As
stated in the City’s guidelines, projects that are located in areas with predominately similar land
uses can utilize the SGCVOG screening tool. To ensure that the project is consistent with the land
uses that are evaluated in the project Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) in the SGVCOG screening tool,
the socioeconomic data in SCAG model TAZ 22180100 was examined. TAZ 22180100 is bounded
by Mission drive on the south, the train tracks on the north, Muscatel Avenue on the east and the
Rubio Wash on the west. The north portion of the TAZ is currently developed with employment uses
while the south portion (south of Grand) is residential. The 2016 base model includes 515
households with a population of 1,511 persons. The zone also includes 645 employees. Therefore,
the project is consistent with both the existing land uses and the land uses evaluated in the SCAG
model and therefore the SGVCOG screening tool. Thus, the SGVCOG tool was appropriate to use
for the Project.
As shown in the Appendix K, the project TAZ 22180100 has a VMT per Service Population of
26.78. The baseline VMT per Service Population is 34.9 percent, therefore a low VMT area would
be a TAZ where the VMT per Service Population is 29.67 or lower. As noted previously, the VMT
per Service Population of the project TAZ is 26.78 and therefore the project is located in a low
VMT area and would meet Screening Criteria 2 – Low VMT Area.
Table TR-1 below shows the trip generation for the proposed Project.
Table TR-1: Proposed Project Trip Generation
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
101
Source: Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memo (Appendix K)
The proposed Project is a residential development within an urbanized area that is served by
transit. The Project site is surrounded by other residential uses and is in a low VMT area based on
the SGCVCOG screening analysis. Therefore, it is legally presumed to have less than significant
VMT impacts, and no further analysis is required. However, we note for informational purposes that
as described previously, the Project vicinity receives public transit services from the City of
Rosemead through the Rosemead Explorer. The Rosemead Explorer operated Monday through
Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends. The closest stop to
the Project site is located near Rosemead High School, approximately 0.7 mile away. Therefore,
residents at the site would have direct and convenient to existing local and regional transit services,
which would further support the reduction of VMT.
The Project would also support pedestrian circulation. As detailed in the previous response, new
onsite sidewalks would be developed to connect to currently existing sidewalks that are adjacent
to the site along Mission Drive and provide pathways throughout the Project site. This would
facilitate pedestrian use and walking to nearby locations, such as the nearby schools and park
facilities. Therefore, the Project meets the intent of SB 743 to support multimodal transportation and
a diversity of interrelated land uses, such as residential, schools, and parks.
As detailed previously on Table TR-1, the proposed 37 residential dwelling units would generate
349 daily trips. The CalEEMod modeling of the GHG emissions that would be generated by
operation of the proposed Project identified (in Table GHG-1) that operational activities of the
Project would generate 613 MTCO2e annually, which is substantially less than the 3,000 MTCO2e
screening threshold. For all of the above reasons including that it is legally presumed to cause less
than significant impacts, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to VMT.
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. The Project would develop and operate 37 residential dwelling units
on the site. None of the proposed structures would include incompatible uses such as farm equipment.
The Project would also not increase any hazards related to a design feature. The onsite driveways
would be developed in conformance with City design standards. The City’s construction permitting
process includes review of Project plans to ensure that no potentially hazardous transportation
design features would be introduced by the Project. For example, the design of the onsite circulation
would has been reviewed to ensure fire engine accessibility is provided to the fire code standards.
Also, access to the Project site would be provided by a 20-foot-wide entry driveway and 20-foot-
wide exit driveway along Mission Drive that would be designed in compliance with the City’s design
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
102
standards to provide for adequate turning for passenger cars, fire trucks, and delivery trucks. As a
result, impacts related to geometric design feature would be less than significant.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The proposed Project would develop and operate residential dwelling units that would
be permitted and approved in compliance with existing safety regulations, such as the California
Building Code and Fire Code (as integrated into the City’s Municipal Code) to ensure that it would
not result in inadequate emergency access.
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would
occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site
or adjacent areas. During construction, Mission Drive would remain open to ensure adequate
emergency access to the Project area and vicinity. Thus, impacts related to inadequate emergency
access during construction activities would not occur.
As described above, operation of the proposed Project would also not result in inadequate
emergency access. Direct access to the Project site would be provided from Mission Drive. The
driveways and on-site circulation constructed by the Project would be evaluated through the City’s
permitting procedures to meet the City’s design standards that provides adequate turning space
for passenger cars, fire trucks, and delivery trucks. The Project is also required to provide fire
suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers). The LAFD would review the development plans
as part of the plan check and permitting procedures to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant
to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of
Regulations, Part 9). As a result, impacts related to inadequate emergency access would not occur.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
There are no impact reducing Plans, Programs, or Policies related to transportation that are
applicable to the Project.
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures related to transportation are required.
Sources
City of Rosemead General Plan Update Circulation Element. Accessed: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10034989/File/Gov/City%20Departments/Com
munity%20Development/Planning/Rosemead.pdf
City of Rosemead Public Transportation. Accessed:
https://www.cityofrosemead.org/cms/one.aspx?pageId=10909050
Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Memo, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc. (VMT
2022) (Appendix K).
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
103
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
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:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
b) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe?
Assembly Bill 52
Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52), requires that Lead Agencies evaluate a
Project’s potential to impact “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include “[s]ites, features,
places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or
included in a local register of historical resources.” AB 52 also gives lead agencies the discretion to
determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a “tribal cultural
resource.” Also, per AB 52 (specifically PRC 21080.3.1), Native American consultation is required
upon request by a California Native American tribe that has previously requested that the City
provide it with notice of such Projects.
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
No Impact. The Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project site, indicated that a church
was constructed on the Project site between 1953 and 1964 but was demolished in 1992. The
structure was not listed in the CRHR files. The site is currently vacant and does not contain any
structures. Therefore, the Project site is not eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of historical resources. The proposed Project would not result in an
impact to a historical resource.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
104
An archaeological record search from the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at
California State University, Fullerton was completed in order to identify any previously recorded
archaeological site within the Project boundary or in the immediate vicinity. According to the records
search, 21 resources are located within a one-half-mile radius of the site, one of which is located
within the site. The Southern California Edison Mesa-Ravendale-Rush 66kV Transmission Line is
located within the site. The transmission line is still present running above the property, however,
none of the steel lattice towers, steel poles, or wood poles are within the Project site. The records
search also identified 13 cultural resource reports conducted within on-half mile of the site, none of
which included the subject property.
b)A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Cultural Resources Assessment
prepared for the Project site, includes aerial photographs describing that the site was used for
agricultural uses from approximately 1928 through the 1950’s and a small residential structure
was located on the southeast corner of the site. A large commercial structure was developed on the
southern portion of the site in the 1960’s that was later removed in the 1990’s. The site is currently
vacant and does not contain any structures.
The Project would excavate and recompact the upper two feet of onsite soils. The Project grading
is anticipated to remain within the fill material but has the potential to encroach into native soils that
have not been previously disturbed.
A search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) was requested for the Project by the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC results were found to be positive for the presence of
sacred site or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the search radius and the NAHC
recommended contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. Pursuant to the
requirements of AB 52, the City sent informational letters about the proposed Project and requests
for consultation to each tribe on the City’s list of tribes requesting consultation on June 14, 2022.
These tribes include the following: Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation,
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrielino/Tongva Nation, Gabrielino
Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council,
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians,
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.
On June 28, 2022, the City received an e-mailed response to the City’s AB 52 outreach letters,
which was from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh nation requesting consultation be
scheduled if ground disturbance were to occur. Consultation occurred via email between June 28,
2022 and September 20, 2022. The consultation included provision of information that the Project
site includes fill materials over native alluvial soils. The tribe Chairman, Andy Salas, provided
modifications to proposed Project. The measure has been included as Mitigation Measure TCR-1
that provides tribal monitoring of initial site clearing (such as pavement removal) and ground-
disturbing activities.
Also, as described previously, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 has been included to provide procedures
to be followed in the event that potential resources are discovered during grading, excavation, or
construction activities. As detailed previously, if the discovered resource(s) appears Native American
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
105
in origin, a Native American Monitor shall be contacted to evaluate any potential tribal cultural
resource(s) and shall have the opportunity to consult on appropriate treatment and curation of these
resources. Additionally, as described previously (and included as PPP CUL-1), California Health
and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in the Project site,
disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation.
If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact,
by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Thus, impacts related to
California Native American tribe resources would be less than significant with implementation of
Mitigation Measures TCR-1and CUL-1; and PPP CUL-1.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP CUL-1: Human Remains. Listed previously in Section 5, Cultural Resources.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring. Listed previously in Section 5, Cultural
Resources.
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Native American Monitoring. Listed previously in Section 5, Cultural
Resources.
Sources
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR 2005). Tribal Consultation Guidelines,
Supplement to General Plan Guidelines. November 14, 2005. Available at:
http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SB-18-Tribal-Consultation-Guidelines.pdf
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
106
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the Project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
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 statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact.
Water Infrastructure
The proposed Project is within an urbanized, developed area of Rosemead. The Project would
install new onsite potable water lines that would connect to existing 6-inch water lines in Mission
Drive. The new onsite water system would convey water supplies to the proposed residences and
landscaping through plumbing/landscaping fixtures that are compliant with the CalGreen Plumbing
Code and the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 for efficient use of water.
The proposed Project would receive water supplies through the existing water lines located within
the Mission Drive right-of-way that have the capacity to provide the increased water supplies
needed to serve the proposed Project, and no expansions of the water pipelines that convey water
to the Project site would be required. Installation of the new water distribution lines on the site would
only serve the proposed Project and would not provide new water supplies to any offsite areas.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
107
The construction activities related to the onsite water infrastructure that would be needed to serve
the proposed residences is included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any
physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this MND. For example,
construction emissions for excavation and installation of the water infrastructure is included in
Sections 3, Air Quality and 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are
evaluated in Section 13, Noise. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction
of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.
Wastewater Treatment
The Project site is currently served by the existing 8-inch sewer line within Mission Drive. The Project
includes installation of onsite 8-inch sewer lines that would connect to the existing 8-inch sewer line
in Mission Drive. The Project site is served by the Los Angeles Sanitary District.
The construction activities related to installation of the onsite sewer infrastructure that would serve
the proposed Project, is included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any
physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this MND. For example,
construction emissions for excavation and installation of the sewer infrastructure is included in Section
3, Air Quality and 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are
evaluated in Section 13, Noise. As the proposed Project includes facilities to serve the proposed
development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new wastewater facilities or
expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
Stormwater Drainage
The Project would maintain the existing stormwater flow pattern. The existing condition has 98.5%
(3.33 acres) pervious area and 1.5% (0.05 acre) impervious area. After development of the
Project, the site would have 14% (0.47 acres) pervious area and 86% (2.91 acres) impervious
area. The proposed Project would increase the overall impervious footprint by 84.5% (2.86 acres),
which would increase offsite stormwater drainage. However, The Project would install new onsite
catch basins, infiltration systems, and a detention pipe system to capture and treat stormwater.
Stormwater would be infiltrated by a proposed onsite drywell system.
Because the Project would reduce impervious surfaces, and the drywell and storm drain system have
been sized to accommodate required flows, the proposed Project would not result in an increase
stormwater runoff. Thus, the Project would not require or result in the construction of new offsite
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing offsite facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects. The required installation of onsite drainage features
is included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any physical environmental
effects beyond those identified in other sections of this IS/MND. Overall, impacts related to
stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant.
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. According to the California American Water Los Angeles County
District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the District receives water supplies from
groundwater, surface water, purchased and imported water, and recycled water. In 2020, the
District had a total supply of 19,453 AFY of groundwater from the Central, Duarte, and San Marino
Basins, imported water, and surface water. The District also had a total water demand of 19,453
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
108
AF in 2020. The UWMP Projects that demands will steadily increase through 2045 with a maximum
of 22,618 AFY in 2045 (UWMP 2020). MWD has completed its water service reliability assessment
in their Draft 2020 UWMP and determined that, under the conditions required by the UWMP, it
has supply capabilities sufficient to meet expected demands from 2025 through 2045 under a
single dry- year condition and period of drought lasting five consecutive water years, as well as in
a normal water year hydrologic condition as shown in Table UT-1, below. (Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, 2021).
Table UT-1: District Supply Reliability – Average, Single Dry Year, & Multiple Dry Years
Water
Sources
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Normal Year
Supply
21,595 21,894 22,193 22,405 22,618
Normal Year
Demand
21,595 21,894 22,193 22,405 22,618
Single Dry
Year Supply
24,650 24,991 25,332 25,574 25,817
Single Dry
Year Demand
24,605 24,991 25,332 25,574 25,817
Multiple Dry
Years Supply
(1st Year)
23,966 24,298 24,629 24,865 25,101
Multiple Dry
Years
Demand
(1st Year)
23,966 24,298 24,629 24,865 25,101
Multiple Dry
Years Supply
(2nd Year)
24,718 25,059 25,380 25,623 25,101
Multiple Dry
Years
Demand (2nd
Year)
24,718 25,059 25,380 25,623 25,101
Multiple Dry
Years Supply
(3rd Year)
24,073 24,404 24,697 24,932 N/A
Multiple Dry
Years
Demand (3rd
Year)
24,073 24,404 24,697 24,932 N/A
Multiple Dry
Years Supply
(4th Year)
19,200 19,463 19,681 19,868 N/A
Multiple Dry
Years
Demand (4th
Year)
19,200 19,463 19,681 19,868 N/A
Multiple Dry
Years Supply
(5th Year)
19,342 19,607 19,810 19,999 N/A
Multiple Dry
Years Supply
(5th Year)
19,342 19,607 19,810 19,999 N/A
Source: California American Water Los Angeles Country District 2020 UWMP
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
109
The UWMP estimates water demand based on the water use target of 187 gallons per capita
daily. As described in Section 14, Population and Housing, the proposed 37 residential units are
anticipated to result in approximately 128 new residents. Based on the UWMP water estimates,
the Project would result in a water demand of 23,936 gallons per day (26.81acre feet per year).
The Project’s demand of 26.81 acre-feet equates to 0.8 percent of the anticipated increase in
water demand. Based on the City’s UWMP supply and demand data and the limited increase in
water demand from the proposed Project, the City would have water supplies available to serve
the Project. In addition, the Project would limit water use by inclusion of low-flow plumbing and
irrigation fixtures, pursuant to the California Title 24 requirements. Therefore, the proposed Project
would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project, and impacts would be less than
significant.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would generate wastewater flows, which would
be conveyed through an existing 8-inch sewer line in Mission Drive to the District’s 18-inch diameter
truck sewer which has a capacity of 5.9 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow
of 0.7 mgd. The wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be treated at the San Jose
Creek Water Reclamation Plant which has a capacity of 100 mgd and currently processes an
average flow of 66.9 mgd (CalRecycle 2022). In the event that biosolids and wastewater flow
exceed the capacity of the San Jose Creek, excess flows would be diverted to, and treated at, the
Joint Water Pollution Control Plan in the City of Caron (Appendix L). The expected wastewater
flow from the Project site is 9,100 gallons per day. In addition, a Sewer Area Study (Appendix M)
was conducted to investigate the sewage discharge route along Mission Drive and ensure there is
adequate sewer capacity for the proposed Project. The study concluded that the existing sewer
system has a design capacity above the calculated cumulative flow from the proposed Project. Thus,
the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant would be able to accommodate the wastewater flow
from the Project, and impacts related to the wastewater treatment system would be less than
significant.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would generate solid waste that would be hauled to the
Puente Hills Materials Recovery Facility in the City of Whittier that is operated by the Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County. The Puente Hills Materials Recovery Facility is permitted to accept
up to 4,400 tons per day (8,800,000 pounds/day) of municipal solid waste.
Construction
Project construction would generate solid waste for landfill disposal in the form of demolition debris
from the existing pavement and infrastructure that would be removed from the site. Demolition
waste would be properly characterized as required by law and recycled or disposed of at an
appropriate type of landfill for such materials. Construction waste in the form of packaging and
discarded materials would also be generated by the proposed Project. Section 5.408.1 of the
2016 California Green Building Standards Code and the City Municipal Code Chapter 50.64
requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the
nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Thus, the demolition and construction solid waste
that would be disposed of at the landfill would be approximately 35 percent of the waste
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
110
generated. Therefore, demolition activities which includes removal of the partially paved road on
the Project site would not result in substantial waste.
As described above, the Puente Hills Materials Recovery Facility has capacity of approximately
4,400 tons per day. Therefore, the facility would be able to accommodate the addition of
demolition of the partial road on the proposed Project site, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Operation
The CalEEMod solid waste generation rate for residential land use is 0.41 tons per resident per
year. As described previously, full occupancy of the proposed Project would generate
approximately 128 residents. Thus, operation of the Project would generate approximately 52.48
tons per solid waste per year; or 0.99 tons per week. However, at least 75 percent of the solid
waste is required by AB 341 and Municipal Code Chapter 8.32 to be recycled, which would reduce
the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately 495 pounds per week. As the Puente Hills
Materials Recovery Facility has a maximum capacity of approximately 4,400 tons per day, the
solid waste generated by the Project would be within the capacity of the landfill. Thus, the proposed
Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
Project’s solid waste disposal needs and the Project would not impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals. Impacts related to landfill capacity would be less than significant.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
No Impact. The proposed Project would result in new development that would generate an
increased amount of solid waste. All solid waste-generating activities within the City is subject to
the requirements set forth in Section 5.408.1 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards
Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent
of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a
minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste, as included in Municipal Code Chapter 8.32.
Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with all state regulations, as ensured
through the City’s development Project permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Project would
comply with all solid waste statute and regulations; and impacts would not occur.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP UT-1: Solid Waste. As required by Municipal Code Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.010 of the
2016 California Green Building Standards Code, and AB 341 the Project shall implement a Waste
Management Plan to ensure that the construction and operational diversion requirements would be
met.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to utilities and service systems are required.
Sources
CalReycyle Disposal Reporting System: Jurisdiction Tons by Facility(CalRecycle 2022). Accessed:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
111
California American Water Los Angeles District UWMP (UWMP 2022). Accessed:
https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/public/uwmp_attachments/6241132438/CAW%20LA%20Distric
t%202020%20UWMP_with%20Appendicies_Final.pdf
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
112
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
20. WILDFIRES. 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 of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. According to the California Fire Hazard Severity Zones mapping, the City of Rosemead
(including the Project site) is not within a Very High Fire Hazard zone. Direct access to the Project
site would be provided from a 40-foot-wide driveway along Mission Drive. The Project is required
to design and construct internal access and provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and
sprinklers) in conformance with the City’s Municipal Code, and the Fire Department would review
the development plans prior to approval to ensure adequate emergency access. pursuant to the
requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations,
Part 9, included in the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 8.24, California Fire Code as amended by
Los Angeles County Fire Code). As a result, the proposed Project would not impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts not occur.
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?
No Impact. As described in the previous response, the Project site is not located within a Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 357 to
363 feet above mean sea level. The areas within the Project’s vicinity also do not contain hillsides
or other factors that could exacerbate wildfire risks. therefore, no impact would occur.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
113
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?
No Impact. As described in the previous responses, the Project site is not within a Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone. The Project site is located within an urbanized area within the City of
Rosemead. The Project does not involve any new infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risks or result in
other impacts to the environment. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. As described in the previous responses, the Project site is not within a Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone. The Project site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 357 to 363
feet above mean sea level. Likewise, areas adjacent to the Project site are relatively flat urban
sites that do not contain hillsides or other factors that would expose people or structures to flooding
or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The Project would
not generate slopes and would connect to existing drainage facilities. Thus, the Project would not
result in risks related to wildfires or risks related to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides
after wildfires. Therefore, impacts would not occur.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
There are no impact reducing Plans, Programs, or Policies related to wildfires that are applicable
to the Project.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to wildfires are required.
Sources
State Geoportal. California Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). Available:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/CALFIRE-Forestry::california-fire-hazard-severity-zones-fhsz
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
114
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
b) Does the Project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a Project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and
the effects of probable future Projects)?
c) Does the Project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
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 with Mitigation Incorporated. As described in Section 4, Biological Resources,
the Project site is located within an urban area and currently disturbed and vacant. No endangered,
rare, threatened, or special status plant species (or associated habitats) or wildlife species
designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW), or California Native Plant Society (CNPS) occur on the site. The proposed Project
would develop the Project site with 37 residential units, which would include installation of new
ornamental landscaping. As no sensitive species or habitats are located within the urban and
developed site, implementation of the Project would not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, or impact a plant
or animal community.
However, the Project site contains ornamental trees that could be used for nesting by common bird
species that are protected by the federal MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code Sections
3503.5, 3511, and 3515. These bird species are protected during the avian nesting and breeding
season, which occurs between February 1 and September 15. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-
1 has been included to require a nesting bird survey if construction commences during nesting
season. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
115
As described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the Project site does not contain any buildings or
structures that meet any of the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register)
criteria or qualify as “historical resources” as defined by CEQA. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
However, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 has been included to provide procedures to be followed in
the event that potential archaeological resources are discovered during grading, excavation, or
construction activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts related to
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory would be less than
significant.
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 with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project would redevelop the Project site
for 37 residential units within a developed area. The Project would provide land uses that are
consistent with the adjacent residential uses. As described above, all of the potential impacts related
to implementation of the Project would be less than significant or reduced to a less than significant
level with implementation of mitigation measures that are imposed by the City that effectively
reduce environmental impacts.
The cumulative effect of the proposed Project taken into consideration with other development
projects in the area would be limited, because the Project would develop the site with a slighter
higher density than the General Plan land use designation, zoning designation, and County code,
and would not result in substantial effects to any environmental resource topic, as described
throughout this document.
As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook methodology
describes that any projects that result in daily emissions that exceed any of these thresholds would
have both an individually (project-level) and cumulatively significant air quality impact. If estimated
emissions are less than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant. As shown
in Table AQ-2, CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by the proposed
Project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Operational emissions associated with the
proposed Project were modeled using CalEEMod and are presented in Table AQ-3. As shown, the
proposed Project would result in long-term regional emissions of the criteria pollutants that would
be below the SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s operational emissions would
not exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS, would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant impacts, and operational impacts would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, global climate change occurs as the result of
global emissions of GHGs. An individual development Project does not have the potential to result
in direct and significant global climate change effects in the absence of cumulative sources of GHGs.
The Project’s total annual GHG emissions at buildout would not exceed the annual GHG emissions
threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. As shown on Table GHG-1, the Project would result in approximately
613 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to
GHG emissions.
The Project meets the City’s VMT screening criteria for residential projects. Therefore, the proposed
Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact related to VMT. Therefore, cumulatively
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
116
considerable transportation related impacts would be less than significant.
Given that the potential Project-related impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level,
implementation of the Project would not result in impacts that are cumulatively considerable when
evaluated with the impacts of other current projects, or the effects of probable future projects.
Therefore, the Project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impacts would be less than
cumulatively considerable. As discussed throughout this IS/MND, mitigation would be required and
incorporated as necessary. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project proposes development of the
Project site for residential uses. As described previously, the Project site is within an urban area and
surrounded by consistent land uses. The Project would not consist of any use or any activities that
would result in a substantial negative affect on persons in the vicinity. This includes potential impacts
related to construction, demolition, and the proposed residential activities. All resource topics
associated with the proposed Project have been analyzed in accordance with CEQA and the State
CEQA Guidelines and were found to pose no impacts or less-than-significant impacts with
implementation of mitigation measures related to biological resources, cultural resources,
paleontological resources, noise, and tribal cultural resources; and existing plans, programs, or
policies that are required by the City. Consequently, with mitigation, the proposed Project would
result in less than significant direct and indirect environmental effects on human beings.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP AES-1: Light and Glare. As listed in Section 1, Aesthetics.
PPP AQ-1: Rule 402. As listed in Section 2, Air Quality.
PPP AQ-2: Rule 403. As listed in Section 2, Air Quality.
PPP AQ-3: Rule 1113. As listed in Section 2, Air Quality.
PPP CUL-1: Human Remains. As listed in Section 5, Cultural Resources.
PPP E-1: CalGreen Compliance. As listed in Section 6, Energy.
PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. As listed in Section 7, Geology and Soils.
PPP WQ1: SWPPP. As listed in Section 7, Geology and Soils.
PPP WQ-2: Water Quality Management Plan. As listed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water
Quality.
PPP NOI-1: Construction Hours. As listed in Section 13, Noise.
PPP NOI-2: Best Construction Practices. As listed in Section 13, Noise.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
117
PPP PS-1: School Fees. As listed in Section 15, Public Services.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As listed in Section 4, Biological Resources.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring. As listed in Section 5, Cultural Resources.
Mitigation Measure PAL-1: Incidental Discoveries. As listed in Section 7, Geology and Soils.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Construction Vibration. As listed in Section 13, Noise.
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Native American Monitoring. As listed in Section 18, Tribal Cultural
Resources.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
118
5 GENERAL REFERENCES
City of Rosemead Municipal Code. Accessed:
https://library.municode.com/ca/rosemead/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_TIT13
PUSE_CH13.16STWAMA_13.16.010DE
City of Rosemead General Plan. Accessed: https://cdn5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10034989/File/Gov/City%20Departments/Com
munity%20Development/Planning/Rosemead.pdf
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
119
6 DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
Lead Agency:
City of Rosemead
8838 Valley Blvd
Rosemead, CA 91770
Contact Person and Phone Number: Annie Lao, (626) 569-2144
CEQA Document Preparer:
Environment Planning Development Solutions, Inc.
Konnie Dobreva, JD
Brooke Blandino
Heather Roberts
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis, Appendix A
Environment Planning Development Solutions, Inc.
Alex J. Garber
General Biological Assessment, Appendix B
Hernandez Environmental Services.
Shawn Hernandez
Cultural Resources Assessment, Appendix C
Brian F. Smith and Associates
Brian F. Smith, MA
Elena C. Goralogia, BA
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Appendix D
Albus & Associates, Inc
David E. Albus, Principal Engineer
Paleontological Resources Assessment, Appendix E
Brian F. Smith and Associates
Brian F. Smith, MA
Elena C. Goralogia, BA
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Appendix F
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
Alicia Jansen, Associate Scientist
Joshua Sargent, MS, PG
Kyle Emerson, PG, CEG
Remedial Excavation Completion Report, Appendix G
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
Brian Viggiano, PG,
Kyle Emerson, CEG
Preliminary Hydrology Study, Appendix H
C&V Consulting, Inc.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
120
Ryan Bittner, P.E.
Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan, Appendix I
C&V Consulting, Inc.
Ryan Bittner, PE
Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix J
LSA
JT Stephens
Trip Generation and VMT Analysis, Appendix K
Environment Planning Development Solutions, Inc.
Meghan Macias, TE
Sewer Will Serve Letter for 8601 Mission Drive, Appendix L
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
Robert C. Ferrante
Sewer Area Study VTTM No. 83705, Appendix M
C&V Consulting, Inc.
Dane P. McDougall, RCE
Mission Villas Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
121
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Villas Residential Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments
City of Rosemead 2-1
Final MND
December 2022
Chapter 2. Response to Comments on the Public Review
Draft MND
This memo contains responses to the comments that the City of Rosemead (Lead Agency) received on the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Mission Villas Residential Project during the public review
period, which began November 10, 2022, and closed November 30, 2022 (SCH No. 2022110230). This
document has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §
15000 et seq.) and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document and the
circulated IS/MND together comprise the Final MND.
The following letter was submitted to the City during the public review period:
1. Los Angeles County Sanitation District, Received November 28, 2022 (2 pages)
The public comments and responses to comments are included in the public record and are available to the
Lead Agency decision-makers for their review and consideration prior to making their decision. Pursuant to
CEQA Statute Section 21155.2(b)(5), none of the comments provide substantial evidence that the Project will
have significant environmental effects which would require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
None of this new material indicates that the Project will result in a significant environmental impact or an
increase in a less than significant impact previously disclosed in the Mission Villas Residential Project MND.
This Response to Comments includes minor revisions to the Public Review Draft MND based upon: (1)
clarifications required to prepare a response to a specific comment; and/or (2) typographical errors. These
revisions do not alter any impact conclusions that are disclosed in the MND. Revisions to the MND are outlined
in Chapter 3, MND Errata.
Although CEQA Statute Section 21155 does not require a Lead Agency to prepare written responses to
comments received, the City of Rosemead has elected to prepare the following written responses with the
intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed Project. The number
designations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions of each comment letter.
Mission Villas Residential Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments
City of Rosemead 2-2
Final MND
December 2022
Letter A1: Los Angeles County Sanitation District (2 pages)
Mission Villas Residential Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments
City of Rosemead 2-3
Final MND
December 2022
Mission Villas Residential Project Chapter 2. Response to Public Comments
City of Rosemead 2-4
Final MND
December 2022
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER A1: Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Comment A1.1: This comment introduces the comment letter, and states that the commenter offers comments
on sewage service. The comment states that the wastewater would discharge to a local sewer line then
convey to the District’s Grand Avenue Trunk Sewer located in Mission Drive. The comment also states that the
18-inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 5.9 million gallons per day (mgd) and a peak flow of 0.7
mgd. Chapter 3 of the Final MND has been revised to include a description of the 18-inch diameter trunk
sewer line. Therefore, no further analysis is warranted.
Comment A1.2: This comment states that the wastewater will be treated at the Whittier Narrows Water
Reclamation Plant which has a capacity of 15 mgd and currently processes an average recycled flow of 8.3
mgd or the Los Coyotes WRP which has a capacity of 37.5 mgd and currently processes an average recycled
flow of 17.5 mgd. Chapter 3 of the Final MND has been revised to include a description of the two
wastewater treatment plants. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.3: This comment states that the expected wastewater flow from the Project is expected to be
10,036 gallons per day (gpd) and provides a link to the copy of the District’s average wastewater
generation factors. Chapter 3 of the Final MND has been revised to include the 10,036 (gpd). The change
from 9,100 gpd to 10,036 gpd is minimal and would remain within the existing sewer capacity Therefore,
impacts would remain less than significant and no further analysis is warranted.
Comment A1.4: This comment states that a connection fee may be required before the Project is permitted
to discharge to the Districts’ Sewerage System. The comment also breaks down how the connection fees are
determined. The comment does not contain any information regarding CEQA or requiring changes to the
MND. No further response is warranted.
Comment A1.5: This comment states that the capacities of the Districts’ wastewater treatment facilities are
based on the regional growth forecast adopted by SCAG. The comment also states that the letter does not
constitute a guarantee of wastewater service but is to advise the developer that the Districts intend to provide
the service up to the levels that are legally permitted. The comment does not contain any information
regarding CEQA or provide comments on the adequacy of the Draft MND. Thus, no further response is
warranted.
Mission Villas Residential Project Chapter 3. Errata
City of Rosemead 3-1
Final MND
December 2022
Chapter 3. Errata to the Mission Villas Residential Project
MND
This section contains revisions to the Public Review Draft MND based upon: (1) clarifications required to
prepare a response to a specific comment; and/or (2) typographical errors. These revisions do not alter any
impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the MND. Changes made to the MND are identified here in
strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions.
Revisions in Response to Written Comments and County Changes to Text
The following text, organized by MND Chapters and Sections, has been revised in response to comments
received on the MND and corrections identified by the City.
18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold b on page 104 will be revised as follows:
On June 28, 2022, the City received an e-mailed response to the City’s AB 52 outreach letters,
which was from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh nation requesting consultation be
scheduled if ground disturbance were to occur. Consultation occurred via email between June 28,
2022 and XX September 20, 2022. The consultation included provision of information that the
Project site includes fill materials over native alluvial soils. The tribe Chairman, Andy Salas, provided
modifications to proposed Project. The measure has been included as Mitigation Measure TCR-1
that provides tribal monitoring of initial site clearing (such as pavement removal) and ground-
disturbing activities.
19 Utilities and Service Systems
Threshold a on page 107 will be revised as follows:
Wastewater Treatment
The Project site is currently served by the existing 8-inch sewer line within Mission Drive. The Project
includes installation of onsite 8-inch sewer lines that would connect to the existing local 8-inch sewer
line in Mission Drive. The line would convey to the Los Angeles Sanitary District’s 18-inch trunk
sewer line in Grand Avenue. The Project site is served by the Los Angeles Sanitary District.
The construction activities related to installation of the onsite sewer infrastructure that would serve
the proposed Project, is included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any
physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this MND. For example,
construction emissions for excavation and installation of the sewer infrastructure is included in Section
3, Air Quality and 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are
evaluated in Section 13, Noise. As the proposed Project includes facilities to serve the proposed
development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new wastewater facilities or
expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold c on page 109 will be revised as follows:
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would generate wastewater flows, which would
Mission Villas Residential Project Chapter 3. Errata
City of Rosemead 3-2
Final MND
December 2022
be conveyed through an existing 8-inch sewer line in Mission Drive to the District’s 18-inch diameter
truck sewer which has a capacity of 5.9 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow
of 0.7 mgd. The wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be treated at the Whittier
Narrows Reclamation Plant which has a capacity of 15 mgd and currently processes an
average recycled flow of 8.3 mgd or the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant which has a
capacity of 37.5 mgd and currently processes an average recycled flow of 17.5 mgd. the San
Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant which has a capacity of 100 mgd and currently processes an
average flow of 66.9 mgd (CalRecycle 2022). In the event that biosolids and wastewater flow
exceed the capacity of the San Jose Creek, excess flows would be diverted to, and treated at, the
Joint Water Pollution Control Plan in the City of Caron (Appendix L). The expected wastewater
flow from the Project site is 10,036 9,100 gallons per day. In addition, a Sewer Area Study
(Appendix M) was conducted to investigate the sewage discharge route along Mission Drive and
ensure there is adequate sewer capacity for the proposed Project. The study concluded that the
existing sewer system has a design capacity above the calculated cumulative flow from the
proposed Project. Thus, the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant would be able to
accommodate the wastewater flow from the Project, and impacts related to the wastewater
treatment system would be less than significant.
Mission Villas Residential Project Chapter 4 MMRP
City of Rosemead 4-1
Final MND
December 2022
Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead or public agency that approves or carries
out a project for which an Mitigated Negative Declaration has been certified which identifies one or more
significant adverse environmental effects and where findings with respect to changes or alterations in the
project have been made, to adopt a “…reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project
which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects
on the environment” (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.6).
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required to ensure that adopted mitigation
measures are successfully implemented. The City of Rosemead is the Lead Agency for the Project and is
responsible for implementation of the MMRP. This report describes the MMRP for the Project and identifies
the parties that will be responsible for monitoring implementation of the individual mitigation measures in
the MMRP.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The MMRP for the Project will be active through all phases of the Project, including design, construction, and
operation. The attached table identifies the mitigation program required to be implemented by the City for
the Project. The table identifies mitigation measures required by the City to mitigate or avoid significant
impacts associated with the implementation of the Project, the timing of implementation, and the responsible
party or parties for monitoring compliance.
The MMRP also includes a column that will be used by the compliance monitor (individual responsible for
monitoring compliance) to document when implementation of the measure is completed. As individual Plan,
Program, Policies; and mitigation measures are completed, the compliance monitor will sign and date the
MMRP, indicating that the required actions have been completed.
Mission Villas Residential Project
Chapter 4 MMRP
City of Rosemead 4-2
Final MND
December 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
Mission Villas Residential Project Chapter 4 MMRP
4-3
TABLE 1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure
Action and Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO-1: Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Prior to commencement of grading
activities, the City Building Department, shall verify that in the event that
vegetation and tree removal activities occur within the active breeding season
for birds (February 1–September 15), the Project applicant (or their Construction
Contractor) shall retain a qualified biologist (meaning a professional biologist
that is familiar with local birds and their nesting behaviors) to conduct a nesting
bird survey no more than 3 days prior to commencement of construction activities.
The nesting survey shall include the Project site and areas immediately adjacent
to the site that could potentially be affected by Project-related construction
activities, such as noise, human activity, and dust, etc. If active nesting of birds is
observed within 100 feet of the designated construction area prior to
construction, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer around
the active nests (e.g., as much as 500 feet for raptors and 300 feet for non-
raptors [subject to the recommendations of the qualified biologist]), and the
buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the
juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.
Submittal of pre-activity
field survey results report.
Prior to construction.
City of Rosemead
CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring. The Applicant shall retain a qualified
archaeologist to perform archaeological monitoring and the archaeologist shall
be present during initial ground-disturbing activities (e.g., site preparation and
grading) to identify and assess any known or suspected archaeological and/or
cultural resource. The qualified archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resources
Management Plan to address the details, timing, and responsibility of all
archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the Project site. The
plan shall include a scope of work, project grading and development scheduling,
pre-construction meeting (with consultants, contractors, and monitors), a
monitoring schedule during all initial ground-disturbance related activities, safety
requirements, and protocols to follow in the event of previously unknown cultural
resources discoveries that could be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. The
plan shall be submitted to the City and the Consulting Tribe(s) for review and
Confirmation of
professional archaeologist
retention/ongoing/monito
ring/submittal of Report
of Findings. Prior to
Grading Permit and
during subsurface
excavation.
City of Rosemead
Mission Villas Residential Project Chapter 4 MMRP
4-4
Mitigation Measure
Action and Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
comment, prior to final approval by the City.
MM TCR-1: Native American Monitoring. 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.
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
Submit a CRMP prepared
by Professional
Archaeologist in
consultation with Tribe.
Prior to Grading Permit.
Qualified Professional
Archeologist/ City of
Rosemead
Mission Villas Residential Project Chapter 4 MMRP
4-5
Mitigation Measure
Action and Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
“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.
PALEONTOLOGICAL
MM PAL-1: Incidental Discoveries. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
City of Rosemead Planning Department shall verify that all Project grading and
construction plans and specifications state that in the event that potential
paleontological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or
construction activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified
paleontologist (i.e., a practicing paleontologist that is recognized in the
paleontological community and is proficient in vertebrate paleontology) from the
City or County List of Qualified Paleontologists has evaluated the find and
established a protocol for addressing the find, in accordance with federal and
state regulations. Construction personnel shall not collect or move any
paleontological materials and associated materials. If any fossil remains are
discovered, the paleontologist shall make a recommendation if monitoring shall
be required for the continuance of earth moving activities, and shall provide such
monitoring if required.
Submittal of a
Paleontological Resource
Impact Mitigation Plan.
Prior to Grading Permit.
City of Rosemead
Mission Villas Residential Project Chapter 4 MMRP
4-6
Mitigation Measure
Action and Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
NOISE
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Construction Vibration. Project plans and
specifications shall include the requirement that that operation of any heavy
equipment shall be prohibited within 15 feet of existing residences to the north
and east. If heavy equipment is necessary within 15 feet of existing structures,
the following measures shall be implemented.
• Identify structures that could be affected by ground-borne vibration
and would be located within 15 feet of where heavy construction
equipment would be used. This task shall be conducted by a qualified
structural engineer as approved by the City’s Director of Community
Development or designee.
• Develop a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan for
approval by the City’s Director of Community Development, or
designee, to identify structures where monitoring would be conducted;
set up a vibration monitoring schedule; define structure-specific
vibration limits; and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and
crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions.
Construction contingencies such as alternative methods or equipment that
would generate lower vibration levels would be identified for when
vibration levels approached the limits.
• At a minimum, monitor vibration during initial demolition activities.
Monitoring results may indicate the need for more intensive
measurements if vibration levels approach the 0.2 PPV (in/sec)
threshold.
• When vibration levels approach the 0.2 PPV (in/sec) limit, suspend
construction and implement contingencies identified in the approved
vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to either lower
vibration levels or secure the affected structures.
Notes on grading plans.
Prior to grading permit.
City of Rosemead
TRIBAL
MM CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring. See Cultural Mitigation above Confirmation of
professional archaeologist
City of Rosemead
Mission Villas Residential Project Chapter 4 MMRP
4-7
Mitigation Measure
Action and Timing Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
retention/ongoing/monito
ring/submittal of Report
of Findings. Prior to
Grading Permit and
during subsurface
excavation.
MM TCR-1: Native American Monitoring. See Cultural Mitigation above Submit a CRMP prepared
by Professional
Archaeologist in
consultation with Tribe.
Prior to Grading Permit.
Qualified Professional
Archeologist/ City of
Rosemead
Mission Villas Residential Project Chapter 4 MMRP
4-8
PPP Action and Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance /
Verification
Date Completed and
Initials
AESTHETICS
PPP AES-1: Light and Glare. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 17.88,
exterior lighting shall be of low intensity and shielded so that light will not spill
out onto surrounding properties or Project above the horizontal plane.
Compliance with
Municipal Code Chapter
17.88
City of Rosemead
AIR QUALITY
PPP AQ-1: Rule 402. The construction plans and specifications shall state that
the Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The Project shall not discharge from
any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which
cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of
persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety
of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to
cause, injury or damage to business or property.
Compliance with Rule
402. Construction.
City of Rosemead
PPP AQ-2: Rule 403. The construction plans and specifications shall state that
the Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease
when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit
fugitive dust emissions.
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and
disturbed areas within the Project are watered, with complete coverage
of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather;
preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for
the day.
• The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and
Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.
Compliance with Rule
402. Construction.
City of Rosemead
PPP AQ-3: Rule 1113. The construction plans and specifications shall state that
the Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic
Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure
Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.
Compliance with Rule
1113. Construction.
City of Rosemead
Mission Villas Residential Project Chapter 4 MMRP
4-9
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PPP CUL-1: Should human remains be discovered during Project construction, the
Project would be required to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5, which states that no further disturbance may occur in the vicinity of the
body until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and
disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County
Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined
to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage
Commission, which will determine the identity of and notify a Most Likely
Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized
representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD must
complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.
Cease all ground
disturbing activity and
contact NAHC within 24
Hours per PRC 5097.98 if
remains are potentially
Native American. In the
case of an inadvertent
discovery of human
remains.
City of Rosemead
ENERGY
PPP E-1: California Energy Code Compliance. The Project is required to comply
with the 2019 California Energy Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code
(Chapter 12.24) to ensure efficient use of energy. California Energy Code
specifications are required to be incorporated into building plans as a condition
of building permit approval.
Compliance with 2019
California Energy Code
as included in the City’s
Municipal Code (Chapter
12.24).
City of Rosemead
GEOLOGY
PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. The Project is required to comply with
the California Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter
15.04 to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards.
California Building Code related and geologist and/or civil engineer
specifications for the Project are required to be incorporated into grading plans
and specifications as a condition of Project approval.
Comply with California
Building Code. Prior to
Grading Permit.
City of Rosemead
PPP WQ-1: SWPPP. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project developer shall
have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a QSD
(Qualified SWPPP Developer) in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code
Chapter 13.16 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control and the Los
Angeles County RWQCB NPDES Storm Water Permit Order No. R4-2012- 0175.
The SWPPP shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs)
and other NPDES regulations to limit the potential of erosion and polluted runoff
during construction activities. Project contractors shall be required to ensure
Review and approval of
SWPPP. Prior to Grading
Permit.
City of Rosemead
Mission Villas Residential Project Chapter 4 MMRP
4-10
compliance with the SWPPP and permit periodic inspection of the construction
site by City of Rosemead staff or its designee to confirm compliance.
WATER QUALITY
PPP WQ-1: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to grading permit
issuance, the Project developer shall have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) in accordance with
the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 13.16 and the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Storm Water Permit Order No. R4-2012-0175 (MS4 Permit). The SWPPP shall
incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other NPDES
regulations to limit the potential of erosion and polluted runoff during construction
activities. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the
SWPPP and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by the City of
Rosemead staff to confirm compliance.
Provide a SWPPP in
accordance with Municipal
Code Chapter. Prior to
Grading.
City of Rosemead
PPP WQ-2: Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to grading permit issuance,
the Project applicant shall have a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
approved by the City for implementation. The Project shall comply with the City’s
Municipal Chapter 13.16 and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) permit requirements in effect for the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) at the time of grading permit to control discharges of sediments
and other pollutants during operations of the Project.
Provide a WQMP in
accordance with Municipal
Code Chapter 13.16.
Prior to Grading.
City of Rosemead
NOISE
PPP NOI-1: Construction Hours. Per Municipal Code Chapter 8.36, construction
and demolition activities may only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. on weekdays, including Saturday. Construction activities should not
take place at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. No person shall operate
or allow the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling,
repair, or alteration or demolition work outside of these hours to prevent noise
disturbances.
Compliance with
Municipal Code Chapter
8.36. Construction.
City of Rosemead
PPP NOI-2: Best Construction Practices. In addition to compliance with the City’s
Municipal Code allowed hours of construction of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday, excluding Sunday and holidays, the following
recommendations would reduce construction noise to the extent feasible:
City of Rosemead
Mission Villas Residential Project Chapter 4 MMRP
4-11
•The Project construction contractor should equip all construction
equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained
noise mufflers, consistent with manufacturer’s standards.
•The Project construction contractor should locate staging areas away
from off-site sensitive uses during the later phases of Project
development.
•The Project construction contractor should place all stationary
construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from
sensitive receptors nearest the Project site whenever feasible.
PUBLIC SERVICES
PPP PS-1: School Fees. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall provide payment of the appropriate fees set forth by the applicable
school districts related to the funding of school facilities pursuant to Government
Code Section 65995 et seq.
Pay school fees per
Government Code Section
65995 et seq.
City of Rosemead
TRIBAL RESOURCES
PPP CUL-1: Human Remains. Listed previously in Section 5, Cultural Resources. Cease all ground
disturbing activity and
contact NAHC within 24
Hours per PRC 5097.98 if
remains are potentially
Native American. In the
case of an inadvertent
discovery of human
remains.
City of Rosemead
UTILITIES
PPP UT-1: Solid Waste. As required by Municipal Code Chapter 8.32, Section
8.32.010 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, and AB 341
the Project shall implement a Waste Management Plan to ensure that the
construction and operational diversion requirements would be met.
Comply with CalGreen
standards. Prior to Final
Inspection.
City of Rosemead