CC - Item 3D - Resolution No. 2007-39 - Conditional Use Permit 07-1103 AppealF • •
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO:
THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGE w _11_.••
DATE:
OCTOBER 9, 2007
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION 2007-39
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-1103 APPEAL
SUMMARY
Over the last several months, the City has been working with the Garvey School District
and East Los Angeles College (ELAC) towards processing a conditional use permit
application to lease the existing Williams Elementary School facility located at 2444 Del
Mar Avenue, for the purpose of establishing and operating a satellite ELAC campus.
The Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit at its' September 5,
2007 meeting. Shortly thereafter, Council Member Gary Taylor requested that the CUP
be appealed to the City Council.
On September 25, 2007, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval
of the CUP and directed staff to prepare a resolution with all required findings, including
information relating to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in this case, a
mitigated negative declaration.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution 2007-39 approving
Conditional Use Permit 07-1103 and adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
LEGAL REVIEW
This staff report has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
City Manager
Attachment A: Resolution 2007-39
Attachment B: Mitigation Negative Declaration
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: •
RESOLUTION 2007-39
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DENYING
APPEAL AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-1103, FOR
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SATELLITE CAMPUS LOCATED AT 2444 N.
DEL MAR AVENUE IN THE R-2; LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL ZONE
(APN:5284-034-900).
WHEREAS, on May 31, 2007, Garvey School District, on behalf of East Los Angeles
College (ELAC) submitted a Conditional Use Permit application requesting the City's
approval to lease the existing Williams Elementary School facility for a period of 5-7 years
for the purpose of establishing a satellite campus located at 2444 N. Del Mar Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Section 17.112.020.6 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) permits
the operation of educational institutions in any zone upon the granting of a conditional use
permit; and
WHEREAS, 2444 N. Del Mar Avenue, is located in the R-2; Light Multiple
Residential zone; and
WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and
Section 17.112.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission
to approve, conditionally approve or deny conditional use permits; and
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2007, the Rosemead Planning Commission approved
Conditional Use Permit 07-1103, and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2007, Council Member Gary Taylorfiled an appeal of
the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit 07-1103; and
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2007, one-hundred (100) notices were sent to
property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property, in addition to notices
posted in five (5) public locations, along with the on-site posting and filing of the initial
study/mitigated negative declaration with the County of Los Angeles Registrar-
Recorder/County Clerk, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and
location of the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 07-1103 APPEAL; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2007, the City Council held a duly noticed and
advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional Use
Permit 07-1103 APPEAL; and
WHEREAS, the Rosemead City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony
presented to them in order to make the following determination.
• •
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rosemead as follows:
SECTION 1. California Environmental Quality Act Findings: Section 15070 (b) of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), states that a mitigated negative
declaration shall be prepared by the public agency for a project subject to CEQA when the
initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but revisions to the project plans would
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. The City of
Rosemead has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project
and distributed it for a 20-day public review and public comments as required by CEQA.
The City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and public
comments and has determined that the project, as further described in the staff report and
the public testimony and the CUP conditions of approval; to wit a satellite campus for ELAC
with a total student and staff population not to exceed 260 persons has been adequately
studied and examined as required by CEQA. With the included mitigation measures, there
is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City, that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment, provided that the total students, facility and
staff does not exceed 260 persons. Any use in excess of the maximum 260 persons would
require further study and analysis under CEQA as a change to the project or a new project.
Any studies or references in the environmental materials which purport to analyze impacts
in excess of 260 persons are only accepted and approved by the Council for purposes of
analyzing the potential impacts associated with an on campus total population not to
exceed 260 persons.
SECTION 2. Conditional Use Permit Findings: The City Council HEREBY FINDS
AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Conditional Use Permit 07-
1103 according to the Criteria of Chapter 17.112.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as
follows:
A. FINDING: The conditional use permit applied for is authorized by the
provisions of this title and that the granting of such conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the established character of the surrounding neighborhood or be injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
FACTS: The permit is for the operation of an educational institution, which is
conditionally permitted in any zone. This site will be operated in accordance with
applicable City regulations, and is in conformity with the development in and around the
project site.
B. FINDING: The establishment, maintenance or conduct of the use for which
the conditional use permit is sought will not, under the particular case, be detrimental to the
health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of persons residing or working in
the neighborhood.
FACTS: The proposed use will not endanger or be detrimental to surrounding
properties as conditions of approval have been incorporated upon the issuance of this
• •
permit to address possible issues related to the proposed business. ELAC will utilize
seven (7) classrooms with no more than 35 students per class. The maximum attendance
at any one time will total no more than 245 students plus staff for a total on campus
population not to exceed 260 persons. City staff determined that the school would need
138 parking spaces to accommodate 260 persons. The school will be providing 139
parking spaces onsite. A condition was added to ensure that ELAC shall not increase the
number of students and/or staff on this site above 260 people at any one time, unless
adequate parking is provided and approved by the City of Rosemead. Additionally the City
Council has limited its approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to a project which
does not exceed 260 persons on campus at any one time.
C. FINDING: The granting of such conditional use permit will not adversely affect
the General Plan of the City.
FACT: The proposed use is located within a commercial district of the City and the
General Plan designation is public facilities. The proposed use is in conformity with the
General Plan and complementary to the existing commercial businesses surrounding the
property.
SECTION 3. The City Council, as specifically set forth in Sections 1 and 2 above,
HEREBY denies the appeal and approves Conditional Use Permit 07-1103 to allow the
operation of a satellite campus located at 2444 N. Del Mar Avenue, subject to conditions
listed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 4. This resolution is the result of an action taken by City Council on
September 25, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CLARK, LOW, NUNEZ
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: TAYLOR
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: TRAN
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall
transmit copies of same to the applicant, the appellant and the Rosemead Planning
Department.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9th day of October, 2007.
John Tran, Mayor
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
I, Nina Castruita, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 2007-39 being-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-1103, FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
SATELLITE CAMPUS LOCATED AT 2444 N. DEL MAR AVENUE IN THE
R-2: LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL ZONE (APN:5284-034-900).
was approved at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 25th day of September, 2007,
and that thereafter, said Resolution was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of
the City Council on the 9th day of October, 2007, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Nina Castruita, City Clerk
0 0
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-1103
2444 N. Del Mar Avenue
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Conditional Use Permit 07-1103, is approved for a satellite campus for East Los
Angeles College (ELAC) to be operated in accordance with the submitted application
plans marked Exhibit "B", dated August 13, 2007. Any revisions to the approved plans
must be resubmitted for review and approval by the Planning Department.
Approval of Conditional Use Permit 07-1103 shall not take effect for any purpose until
the applicant/co-applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead an affidavit stating that
they are aware of and accept all of the conditions set forth in the letter of project
approval and this list of conditions.
3. The use shall commence within six (6) months from the date of this approval or
the applicant/co-applicant may request an extension from the Planning Division
within 30-calender days prior to the six month expiration. Otherwise, Conditional
Use Permit 07-1103 shall become null and void.
4. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws relative to the
approved use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and
Health Departments and the State Education Code.
5. Building permits will not be issued in connection with this project until such time as all
plan check fees, and all other applicable fees are paid in full.
6. Prior to issuance of building permits, all school fees shall be paid. The applicant shall
provide the City with written verification of compliance with the applicable School
District requirements.
7. The proposed hours of ELAC operation at this site will be 7:00 AM to 9:50 PM,
Monday through Friday. Community Services classes shall be offered on
Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM. No Sunday classes shall be allowed and no
music tutoring shall take place outside of the buildings on the subject site
without prior approval of the City of Rosemead Planning Division.
8. The applicant/co-applicant shall grant access to the subject property to the City
of Rosemead staff within 24-hours of request for access or in the case of an
emergency as soon as reasonably possible after the request. Except in
extraordinary circumstances, City staff shall not request access to the subject
property between 10:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The applicant/co-applicant shall not
refuse access in any instance.
• •
9. If construction plans are required to be submitted to the City for review, all conditions of
approval listed on this Exhibit "A" shall be copied directly onto development plans
submitted to the Planning and Building Departments for review.
10. After the Planning Commission approval, the applicant/co-applicant shall be
allowed to occupy the subject property. However, all improvements required by
this permit shall be completed, inspected and approved by the appropriate
Departments within 45-caledar days.
11.A 6-foot tall chain link fence shall be installed between existing Head Start site
boundary and the ELAC campus site to provide a physical buffer between Head Start
and ELAC site. The chain link fence shall be installed to provide additional safety and
security for the children at Head Start site.
12. Prior to operation, the applicant/developer shall install a physical barrier
acceptable to the City to provide a separation between ELAC site and Head Start
site. The applicant/developer shall provide a physical buffer from the grass area
located to the east and north of the site to ensure vehicles do not cross over onto
the grass field area.
13.All requirements of the City of Rosemead Building and Safety Department, Engineering
Department and Planning Department shall be complied with at all times for the life of
this project.
14.The applicant/developer shall incur 100 percent of all improvement costs
including widening of the southerly driveway at High cliff and Del Mar to a
minimum of 26 feet wide in addition to painting red curb along the south side of
Garvey as well as providing an exclusive right-turn lane at Del Marl Garvey
intersection. The applicant/developer shall widen the southerly driveway to a
minimum of 26 feet wide to allow ingress/egress from the subject site. The
applicant/developer shall submit construction plans showing such improvements
to the City Engineer for approval prior to installation.
15. The applicant shall install security lighting poles within the parking lot of ELAC site. The
parking lot lighting poles shall not exceed 25 feet in overall height and shall be shielded
to direct light away from the adjacent residences. The lights shall be on timers and
shall turn off at 10:30 PM
16.The applicant/developershall ensure thatthe grass and landscaped areas on site
are improved to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Division and such
areas shall not remain dirt.
17.The applicant shall install medians acceptable to the City within the parking lotto
separate drive isles from the parking spaces and improve vehicular circulation on
site.
18. Violation of the conditions of approval or any applicable regulations may result in
citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings of this permit.
19.There shall be no on-street parking allowed. Upon determination by the City of
Rosemead that students and/or faculty staff are parking off-site on adjacent roadways,
a new parking lot plan shall immediately be prepared and submitted to the City of
Rosemead for review and approval. Such parking plan shall be designed to provide
additional off-street parking spaces and to eliminate overflow parking concerns in the
neighborhood resulting from ELAC campus on the subject site.
20. Prior to beginning of every semester, ELAC shall submit semester enrolment report to
the Planning Department indicating the number of students and staff to be
accommodated on the subject site for that particular semester.
21. At no time shall ELAC increase the number of students and/or staff on this site
above 260 people at one time unless adequate parking is provided and approved
by the City of Rosemead. If ELAC desires to increase the number of students or
staff on this site in the future, a new site plan, project description and other
supporting material shall be submitted to the City of Rosemead Planning
Department for review and appropriate CEQA analysis before enrollment.
•
MAYOR:
JOHN TRAN
MAYOR PRO TEM.
JOHN NUNEZ
COUNCILMEMBERS:
MARGARET CLARK
POLLY LOW
GARY A. TAYLOR
•
Poscmc ad
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD • P.O. BOX 399
ROSEMEAD. CALIFORNIA 91770
TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100
FAX (626) 307-9218
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ORIGINAL FILED AND
AUG 16 2007 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
LOS ANGELES, COUNTY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2007
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Rosemead Planning Commission has issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration and will
conduct a public hearing on Wednesday September 5 2007 at 7:00 PM, at Rosemead City Hall, 8838 East Valley Boulevard,
Rosemead:
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit 07-1103 - City of Rosemead (hereafter referred to as "Lead Agency" has completed an
Initial Study (IS) of the project described as Dan T. Williams Elementary School - East Los Angeles College Project. Dan T.
Williams Elementary School (hereafter referred to as "Williams") is located 2444 N. Del Mar in the city of Rosemead, California, on
the east side of Del Mar Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Graves Avenue within the jurisdiction of Garvey School District-
Due to declining student enrollment, Williams Elementary School discontinued elementary school classes in June 2006.Ongoing
Head Start and Escalante Math programs, however, are being held at the facilities currently. Garvey School District is proposing to
lease the currently unused facilities at Williams Elementary School to the East Los Angeles College (ELAC) for satellite
educational purposes. ELAC proposes to provide General Education, and Community Services (Children's College, Adult
Courses, Non-credit Basic Skills) programs at the former Williams Elementary Campus. Classes would be held Monday through
Friday from 7:25 a.m. to 9:50 p.m. and on Saturday from 8:00 to 2:50 p.m. No existing buildings would be altered, and no new
buildings would be constructed; the only site alterations proposed at this time are improvements to the driveways on site and
installation of safety/security lights within the existing parking lot.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Initial Study is undertaken to determine if the project may have a significant effect on
the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and local guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City of Rosemead has concluded
that the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment with the incorporation of a mitigation measure for
identified potentially significant effect from traffic and has, therefore, prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The
MND reflects the independent judgment of the City as a lead agency per CEQA guidelines. The project site is not on a list
compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 The proposed project is not considered a project of statewide, regional
or area wide significance and would not affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State Department of
Transportation.
Copies of the IS/MND are on file at the City of Rosemead Planning Department located at 8838 E. Valley Blvd, Rosemead, CA
91770, for public review Any person wishing to comment on the adequacy of the IS/MND must submit such comments, in writing,
to the City of Rosemead Planning Department, Attn: George Agaba. Comments must be received within 20-calender day period
from August 15, 2007 to September 5, 2007.
The City of Rosemead Planning Commission will consider the project and the IS/MND at its regular meeting on September 5,
2007 at 7:00pm. The Planning Commission meeting is open to the public and the public is encouraged to attend. If the Planning
Commission finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it may adopt the MND.
This means that the Planning Commission may proceed to consider the Dan T. Williams - East Los Angeles College project
without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009 (b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in court, the challenge may be limited
to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Rosemead at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Brad Johnson
Planning Services Administrator
• •
DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
DAN T. WILU MS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
FACT LOS ANGELES COLLEGE PTiOTECT
Prepared fur:
City of Rosemead
S83S East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
Prepared by:
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200
La Mesa, CA 91941
August 13, 2007
DAN T. WILLIAMS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
EAST LOS ANGELES COLLEGE PROJECT
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title: Wilhams Elementary School ISIMND
Lead agency narne and address: C;rir nT R nCPmo!acl
SS,S East \'allev Boulevard
CA 5i1-770
3. Contact person and phone number: Brad Johnson Planning Services Administrator
166)569-2140
4. Project location: 2444 North Del Mar Avenue on the east side of road between Graves Avenue and
Garvalia Avenue wirhin the On' of Rosemead
5. Project sponsors name and address: Garvey School District
Contact Michael Coughlin
2-30 North Del Mar Avenue
Rosemead. CA 91770
6. General plan designation: Public Facilities
7. Zoning: R-2. Light Multiple Residential Zone
S. Description of project (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the
project, and any secondan, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional
sheets if necessary.):
See Attachment A Pro ect Descri Lion - Summan of Technical Studies.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting (Briefly describe the project's surroundings): The project site is located in
a hizhly urbanized area in a rimarily residential neighborhood occupied by single family residences to the
west and east. multi-family residences adiacent to the northern roterr y boundary. and both single family
and multi-familv residences to the south. A commercial corridor is located about five city blocks to the
north alone; Gamey Avenue.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.): City of Rosemead re wires a Condinonal Use Permit
• •
Dar: ; V,1hami Eiewniar) Scnoo! Eav Lo, fingeiei Coliege PrOleci
1 nitia! Srudf lAirneared Ne alive Declarauor.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked
below would be potentialiy affected by this project, involving at
on the
kl
h
"
least one impact that is a 'Poten
tially
as indi
Significant Impact
cated
ist
ec
by the c
following pages.
❑
Aesthetics
❑
Agriculture Resources
❑
Air Quality
❑ Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology /Soils
Hazards 8: Hazardous Materials
❑
❑
Hydrology / Water Quality
❑
Land Use / Planning
ces
l R
❑
❑
Noise
❑
Population / Housing
esour
Minera
ff
c
!T
i
❑
❑
Recreation
L2J
i
ra
on
Transportai
Public Services
❑ Utilities / Service Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of Signifi
cance
DETERMINATION: (To be complete
d by t
he Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared-
7x 1 find chat although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
nor 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.
❑ 1 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.
❑ 1 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 chat are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Signature
Date
Date
• •
Dar, T U''Wham: Elemewat School Ear., Los Angeltr College Project
lnuia!Srua Mur aced Ne arim Deciararron
Issues
Potenrialh
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
lmpa_-t
Mitigation
Impact
incorporation
1. AESTHETICS Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
❑
❑
❑
vista?
bl Substantially damage scenic resources; including;
❑1
❑
❑
C
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway'
c) SubstanualL~ degrade the existing visual character
❑
❑
❑
a
or qualiry of the site and its surroundings'
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
❑
❑
❑
❑
that would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area%
Discussion:
a) The project site is located within a highly urbanized area in an established residential neighborhood. The
project site is completely developed. There are no scenic vistas on, adjacent to, or in the vicinity of the
project site. Thus, the proposed project would not affect scenic vistas.
b) There are no state scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project, and there are no scenic resources
on site. Thus, the proposed project would not impact scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
c) The proposed project would use existing elementary school buildings and facilities on a site that is totally
disturbed. The existing, older buildings are utilitarian in character and have no unique or distinguishing
features. These structures would not be externally altered, and no new buildings would be constructed.
Much of the sire is currently paved, with minimal landscaping. The visual quality of the site is considered
low due to the absence of scenic elements including natural landforms, extensive vegetation, or open
space. Residents in the immediately surrounding area do not have quality views into the site - their
viewing experience is of buildings and developed open areas. There would be no sensitive viewers at the
project site as a result of project implementation, as the proposed use is educational and there are no
expectations of a scenic experience from the users (students and faculty). Installation of an IS-pound vinyl,
opaque material on the existing chain-link fence is proposed along the north, east, and south sides of the
properry site. The fence material would block views both from the site to adjacent areas and from adjacent
areas to the site. Fencing in the surrounding neighborhood is commonplace.
Light standards are proposed in the parking areas (see response to Ld below for details). The light poles
would add narrow vertical elements to the site. Numerous vertical features, including streetlights and
utility poles, already exist it,, the community, and the addition of the light poles would not affect the visual
quality of the area. The introduced fence material, light poles, and light sources would not degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings because the exisring visual quality of the
sire is low and the project elements are consistent with the urban setting in which they would be located.
The proposed project would therefore not significantly affect the visual character or quality of the area.
d) The proposed project would use existing facilities on the project site, and existing lighting sources would
remain. Classes would be offered throughout the day and night, with some classes starting at 7:25 AM
0 0
Dar T. 11"1111ams Elememta+7 School Earl Los Argeiei College ProiIW
Iriua/ Sruci Mztivated Ne atzvr Declaration
and the last classes ending at 9.50 PM, thereby creating a need for additional lighting on the project site
for safer), and security. Light standards would be placed or, site. Lights proposed for use in the parking
area art Hubbell Magnuliter MVL 1090 - 1000 warts Metal Halide quad 120,'20S/24011177`7 with
positive aiming. The lights are designed to aim below the vertical plane, therefore they would be directed
down toward the parking, area only and away from existing adjacent residences that front the property on
the north, east. and south The lights are proposed to operate between dusk and 10:45 PM. The new
parking lot lights would not significantly affect surrounding residences because there is already existing
security lighting on the site, and also, there are numerous light sources within the urbanized area,
including streetlights.
Vehicle headlights would introduce a new short-term light source to the project site. Headlight beams,
however, would be blocked from the view of surrounding residents by the vinyl, opaque material attached
to the existing chain link fence. The vinyl material would block out 90 percent of the light emitted from
vehicle headlights. Light does not penetrate the vinyl, but does "soft spot" the material. There would be a
less than significant impact to aesthetic resources due to light generated from the proposed educational
activity. The proposed project would also not create any glare; and there would therefore be no impact
from glare.
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
11. AGRICULTURE 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. 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 toning for agricultural use,
❑
❑
❑
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
❑
❑
❑
that, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use"
No
Impact
❑
❑
❑
Discussion:
a) The project site is completely developed with an educational facility. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmlands, or Farmland on the site. That portion of the Counry of Los Angeles where the project site is
located is designated as "Urban and Built-Up Land" on the Imporranr Farmland In Cal jornia map
(California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2002).
b) The project site is zoned R-2, which allows for residential development: and not agricultural use. The
properry does not have a Williamson Act contract.
c) No Farmland would be converted to non-agricultural use as a result of the proposed project because there
is no Farmland on the project site.
• •
Gar. T. W ilham., Vementari Scnooi Ea.tr Loi Angelej Coliegr Project
!r:; a.' Stu ~lA4rrircten Nera:m, De~iara:. ar
potentially
Significant
Impact
III AIR QUALITY Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation'
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
❑
❑
❑
❑
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions that exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑
concentraucns?
Less Than No
Significant Impact
impact
7 17
❑
❑
LCJ
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
number of people?
Discussion:
a, b, c) Air quality plans applicable to the proposed project include the 2003 Air Qzw1ii), Management Plan
(AQNIP) and the Final Draft of An Air Toxic Control Plar for the Next Ten Year) adopted in 2000. In order
to conflict with or obstruct implementation of either of the applicable plans, the proposed project would
need to present new sources of pollutant concentrations in excess of established thresholds. While the
proposed project would present new traffic in the immediate vicinity of the project site, that traffic would
be redistributed from the ELAC campus, which is located approximately five miles from Williams
Elementary School. Thus, regional air quality would not be affected as a result of redistributed traffic.
Because the proposed project would nor increase regional air quality pollutant concentrations, cumulative
effects would also not be significant. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of applicable air quality plans, violate any air quabry standard or contribute to an air
quality violation, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Therefore, the proposed project would not have an impact, be it project-specific or cumulative, relating to
air quality plans or standards.
d) All development immediately surrounding the project site is residential. Air quallry regulators typically
define sensitive receptors as schools (preschool through 12" grade), hospitals, resident care facilities, day
care centers, or other facilities char may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely
impacted by changes in air quality. There are no sensitive receptors, as defined above, in -he vicinity of the
project site. There would, however, be sensitive receptors on the project site - the students of the Head
Start program. Although the project may result in some increase in airborne pollutant concentrations as a
result of increased localized traffic from vehicles waiting to exit the site (maximum of 138 vehicles),
sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. As such, the associated
impact would be less than significant.
• •
Dar, T. U%'rllrami Elemenia- Schoo? East Lot Angeles College Prorea
I nura: Srudv,M:rr aced Ne auve Declaration
e) The proposed project is ar, educational use. No objectionable odors would be created, nor are such odors
anticipated from an educational facility No impact would o
ccur
Potentialiv
Less Than
Less Than No Impact
Significant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I ncorporation
Ili BIOLOGICAL KESOUKCES Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, etcher direcd
❑
El
❑
or through hab.tat modificarions, 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
❑
❑
❑ 0
habitat or ocher 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 federally,
❑
❑
❑
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
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'
C) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
❑
❑
❑ ❑
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance'
f) Conflict pith the provisions of an adopted Habitat
❑
a
❑ ,77 Lai
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan,
Discussion:
a) The project site is completely developed with buildings, pavement, and landscaped areas associated with
school activities and is located in a highly urbanized area. There are no known sensitive species on site.
Thus, the proposed project would nor have an effect on 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 f Wildlife Service.
0 0
Dan T. U%i1G4mi Elemeniar) Scr'ool Ear. Loy Angele Collegr Proven
Inrrra/ Stud / izz aced Ne armt Declarartor
b) There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community on sire. Thus, the proposed project
would not have an effect on an; ripanan habitat or other sensitive natural commune identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S Fish &
Wildlife Service
c) There are no federally protected wetlands on sire. Thus, the proposed project would not have an effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption., o: other
means.
d} There are no natural open space areas or wildlife corridors in the vicinity of or on the project site. Thus,
the proposed project would nor interfere with the movement of any native resident, migratory fish,
wildlife species, established native resident, or migratory wildlife corridors, nor would it impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sires,
e) Chapter 17.100 of the Ciry of Rosemead Municipal Code calls for the preservation of oak trees "as
significant historical, aesthetic and ecological resources...." In addition, Chapter 17.100 seeks to create
favorable conditions for the preservation and propagation of this unique irreplaceable plant heritage for
the benefit of the current and future residents of the city." Chapter 17.100 also intends To -maintain and
enhance the public health, safety and welfare through the mitigation of soil erosion and air pollution" and
"preserve and enhance property values through conserving and enhancing the distinctive and unique
aesthetic character of many areas of the city in which oak trees live." The proposed project would not
conflict with the Oak Tree Preservation ordinance as the site is fully developed, no major changes to the
site would occur, and no oak trees exist on the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict
with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance, and no impact would occur.
0 The project site is not located within a habitat conservation plan area. Thus, the proposed project would
not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and no impact
would occur.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would The project.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ D
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§ 15064.5;
o ❑ ❑ o
b) Cause a substantial adverse change ir; the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5'
Q Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
fearure?
• •
Dar, T U'}ilram! Eiem war) Schbo/ Eat! Lo! A»gele! College ProW"
Irlrlal Srud1M!11 aced Ne anw Dederarrox
POtentiall\
Significant
Impact
d) Discurb any human remains, including, chose ❑
interred outside of formal cemetenes%
Less Than Less Than No Imoac
Significant with Significant
Mitigation impact
Incorporation
r7v
❑ D L
Discussion:
a) The main buildings on the Wilbams Elementan, School campus were constructed in 1957, which would
make them 50 years old. The proposed project would use those buP`dR1~uld curoas a result odahe
St.'ucrureS L, their current condition no Strttr'P1ta1 or aeSChPClC Chan$_.
project. Therefore, no impact to historic resources would occur.
b) The project proposes to use the existing facilities available at the school site, which is totally disturbed. No
grading or ground-disturbing activities would result from project implementation. Consequenrly, the
proposed project would not impact any archaeological resources.
c) There is no known paleontological resource or unique geological feature on the project site. The proposed
project woulc use existing buildings and facilities. No ground disturbance is proposed; therefore, there is
no potential for disturbing unknown paleontological resources.
d) There are no known human remains buried on the project site. The proposed project would use existing
tltfacilities. her grading s n potoenual for disturbing unknown human remai s,t from project
implementation.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than No impact
Significant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
V1. GEOLOGY AND SOILS would the pro)eM
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving.
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Paolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on ocher
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
topso&
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
D
D
S
Dar U"ilitam: Eiemencary Sctnool East La! Angelej Gollege Project
lnuial Sucd~dMrtraated Ne alive Deriarauar,
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that rs
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potenually result in on- or off-
site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence.
liquefaction or collapse'
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
EXI
1S-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to lift or properrN
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
❑
❑
use of sentic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater"
Discussion
a) The California Geological Survey (CGS; May 1999) identifies Rosemead as a city that may be affected by
an earthquake fault zone. The project site is not located on a known fault, but is about I mile southwest
of an unnamed fault segment. The Raymond Fault is located approximately 4 miles to the north, and the
Sierra Made Fault lies about S miles to the northeast (California Department of Conservation, Division of
Mines and Geology 1994). The Raymond and Sierra Madre faults are considered to be active faults that
are believed to be sources of magnitude 6 or greater earthquakes during the Quaternary period (the past
1.6 million years). The proposed project mould use existing buildings on the site for an educational use.
When public schools are designed and submitted to the Office of the State Architect (OSA), they are
given a project number (A-Number), which becomes the proof of state approval when the plan check
process is completed. The OSA approved as safe for use by teachers and students all buildings that were
built for the school. The one building that was on the site before the school was built (the "storage"
or o
building
projectlsite.bTheefore, [here rwould becno mpacts
ancN 1) Thereearetno kno ntart
eartthquakesfaults no t have an
relating to rupture of an earthquake fault.
ii) The projecr site is located near known active faults, including the Raymond Fault and Sierra Madre
Fault. In the event of an earthquake from these faults -or other faults in the area, the project site
would be susceptible to seismic ground shaking. The OSA has approved all structures on the project
site for occupancy except the non-occupied building used exclusively for storage. As such, impacts
relating cc seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii) The project site is located near the Raymond and Sierra Madre faults, but there are no known faults on
the site. The site is overlain with engineered fill, and the conditions that would result in liquefaction
during a seismic event, including the presence of clay-free soil deposits (primarily sands and silts) chat
could temporarily lose strength and behave as viscous fluids resulting in ground failure, are not
present. Also, as stated above, OSA approved as safe for students and teachers all buildings that were
built for the school (except the storage building). Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction, would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects.
iv) The CGS Seismic Hazard Zonation Program (SHZP) map indicates that the portion of Rosemead
is su J Also,
'ect to
l an within which the slop.-s. sis located
be an), potential fors landslides ito Occureon of
there are no adjacent near the projecr site.
0 0
Dan T I!',,iliram, blementai~ School bast Loi Angedet Collegr Prtject
lnitaal Stud loth, aced Ne auwr Derlarattor,
b) The project site has been completely developed with structures. pavement, and landscaped areas, and no
grading or site alteration is proposed for the project. The project site is located in a highly urbanized area.
As such, no substantta; loss of ropsoil or soil erosion would occur as a result of project implementation.
C) The project site was historically overlain with Hanford Association soils (Rehor., and General Soil Map, Loi
Angeles Count, Cahfornia, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Revised 1969), which
are well drained and have moderately rapid subsoil permeability. The site is underlain with Pleistocene
nonmarine sedimentary deposits (Geologir Map of California, California Sheer, California Division of Mines
and Geology, 1969), which is 'older' alluvium consisting of gravel, sand, clay, and silt. Tne proposed
project would use existing buildings. No geologic unit or soil insrability would occur as a result of project
implementation,
d) The site is highly disturbed, and it is probable chat it is not overlain with an expansive soil. There would
therefore be no impacts relating to expansive soils.
e) Williams Elementary School is served by a public sewer system, and the proposed project would continue
to be served by chat system. No septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed,
and no impact would occur.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
VI1. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
1`4ATERIALS 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 that 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
would the project result in a safety hazard
ort
i
,
rp
a
For people residing or working in the project area?
f) Fora project within the vicinity of a private
❑
❑
would the project result in a safety hazard
i
stri
p,
r
a
for people residing or working in the project area?
10
9 0
Dar T. V,*i1 tamJ Elementary School East LoJ Angelis COllegc Project
lnina!Studv/A4rtiPared Ne auvi Declaration
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than Nc Impact
Si¢nificant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
gi Impair implementation of or physically interfere
ian or
❑
❑
~1 rul
lJ
wrV: ar, a~oc:e emergencl response a
ernerQtncN etilacuauon plan'
17 ❑
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of F7 ❑
loss, injury or death involving wildiand fires,
including where wild ands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands'o
Discussion.
a) The proposed project use would be educational. The transport of hazardous materials would not occur as
a result of the proposed project use. As such, impacts associated with the transport of hazardous materials
would not be significant.
b) The use of hazardous materials would nor occur as a result of any activities associated with proposed
project use, and the release of hazardous materials would not occur. Executive Environmental Services
Corporation conducted a Lead-Based Paint Inspection at Williams Elementary School in 2002. The
Inspection Report, dared March 13, 2002, noted, "no regulated lead based paint materials were
identified" at the school sire. Further, pursuant to state law, the District is prohibited from conducting
classes within facilities that contain lead-based paint. In addition, asbestos testing was conducted on
restrooms at Williams Elementary School in 2001 The survey firm, Executive Environmental,
summarized their findings in a Comprehensive Asbestos Survey Report dated January 24, 2002, which
stated that no asbestos was detected in the 14 samples taken from The restrooms on campus. Further,
pursuant to state law, the District is prohibited from conducting classes within facilities that contain een asbestos. Because hazardous rne would
che presence of asbestos pcaint no impacts
detect used
on the project site, and asbe os testing did not
associated with the release of hazardous materials would occur.
c) The proposed project would be located at an existing educational facility. Proposed operations would not
involve activiries chat would result in hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste. As such, no impacts associated with the emission or handling
of hazardous materials, substances, or waste would occur.
d) There are no hazardous materials sites on, or in The vicinity of, The project sire pursuant to the California
Department of Toxic Substance Control, Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List - Site Cleanup
(Cortese List 2006).
e) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public airport; the
closest airports to the project sire are Long Beach Airport (21 miles) and Burbank Airport (22 miles).
Thus, the propocOd tsloroject cation woul not result in a safety re elation to public airports peopusele or working in the
project are d wou
resu in a
itsdlocattiontin ella iontTo a private
fl The projectsite not located ding or working initheipro Thus, the
dupe to
safety y hazard for people residing
airstrip, and no impact would occur.
g) The proposed project use would be similar to the existing educational use on the project site. Emergency
response and evacuation plans in place for Williams Elementary School students would be maintained for
ELAC students as well. As such, the proposed project would not interfere with implementation of any
emergency response or evacuation plans, and no impact would occur.
h) The project site and surrounding area has been developed with urban uses. No wildlands are adjacent to,
or in the vicinity of, The project site. As such, the proposed project would not expose people or structures
to a significant risk of loss, injury, or dearh involving wildland fires, and no impact would occur.
• •
✓an T. U"'rluam: Eiernentarl School Earn Lai ingelei College Pro)eu
lnmai Stud Mru~ated lveaauvr Declaration
VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALI TT '
Would the project.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such char there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level that would nor support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granred)'
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a scream or river, in a manner that
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runofr
0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures co a significant risk of
loss, injury or aeath involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow'
Potennally
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
incorporation
❑
❑
F-1 El ❑ ❑
❑ El ❑ ❑
❑
D
❑
Z
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
o
12
• •
Dan T. williami Eienienian School Eatt Los Angele College Proffw
lmiia! Stun Mtr" ated Nepa:rve De:laranor.
Discussion
a) The existing facilities are not known to be in violation of any water quality standards or vase discharge
requirements The proposed project use would be the same rype of use (educational) as the existing use
on the project site. The project site would not be altered, with the exception of very minor modifications
to the sire entrance at HighcliF Avenue (i.e., curb, sidewalk, and parkway in the City's right-of-way, and
portion the fence and tantail violation of w a err qualiry standards or~waste ldischarge requirements result an
impact relating to the suub bs
b) The projecr site would nor be altered to accommodate the proposed project except for very minor changes
to the site ter.-rance a*- Highcliff Avenue. All existing facilities would remain unchanged, and the
groundwater supply and recharge would not be affected. Thus, the proposed project would not present
an tmpac..ela "..b to the depiction gr^undR'a*. supplies or groundwater recharge-
c,d) The project site would not be altered to accommodate the proposed project except for very, minor
changes to the sire entrance at Highcliff Avenue. In addition, a new area drain and concrete culvert
would be installed in the eastern portion of the project sire between the existing paved parking area and
an existing concrete culvert that drains toward the eastern property boundary via an existing drainage
easement. While the proposed project would not specifically alter the existing drainage pattern,
installation of these new drainage facilities would improve existing site drainage. Thus, implementation
of the proposed project would nor result in a significant adverse impact relating to the alteration of
existing drainage patterns such that flooding, erosion, or siltation results.
e) Site runoff would not be altered as a result of project implementation. Surface water on the Williams
Elementary School site drains toward the eastern boundary of the property into an existing storm drain.
The proposed project would use the existing paved surface for all internal circulation and parking. The
project would nor result in a significant impact relating to the contribution of runoff or the additional
provision of polluted runoff.
f) The proposed project use would be the same as the existing use, and the project site would not be altered
except for very minor, changes to the site entrance at Highcliff Avenue. The increase in vehicles parked
on the project sire would result in a slight increase in pollutants (petroleum products, tire detritus, etc.).
Refer to response to VIII.a.
g,h) The proposed project would nor include a housing component, and the project site is not located within a
mapped 100-year flood hazard area. No Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) map was created for any area in Rosemead because the entire city is located
within Zone C, which is outside the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the proposed pro eci would not
impact hydrology such that housing would be placed in a mapped 100-year flood hazard area or flood
flows would be impeded or diverted.
i) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area, and the site is not located downstream
from a levee or dam. As such, the proposed project would not expose people to risk associated with
flooding as a result of levee or dam failure, and no impact would result.
j) The project site is located within a developed urban area, and no significant bodies of mater or vacant/wild
land are near the site. As such, the proposed project would not be subject to phenomena associated with
bodies of warer, including seiche, tsunamis, and muciflows, and no impact would occur.
• •
Dan T Williams Elemewar?, School Easi Loi Angeles College Fiviecr
lraia! 5turt Mui ared Netauve Declarariorr
Potentialh
Less Than
Less Than
No
S.tn•.titan:
~ignif3can. xvich
y
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
incorporation
I). LAND USE AND PLA'N'NING . Would Eh-
project:
hed community"
st
bl
d
❑
❑
❑
❑
is
e an e
a
a) Physically divi
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
❑
❑
❑
r7l
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
pian, specific plan, local cuastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopEed for the purpose of avoiding or
mirigaung an environmental effect %
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
D
0
plan or natural community conservation plan"
Discussion:
a) The proposed project would occupy an existing school campus. No changes to the campus buildings
would be necessary. As such, the proposed project would nor physically divide an established community,
and no impact would occur.
b) The project site is designated as Public Facilities in the Rosemead General Plan and R-2, Light Multiple
Residential, in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project is consistent with the Public Facilities
designation as it is a land use operated for the public welfare or use, which includes educational facilities.
The proposed project also is consistent with the R-21 Light Multiple Residential, zoning designation
because educational institutions are conditionally permitted within the R-2 zone, and the proposed
project would be a continuation of an educational use. The project applicant has applied for a
Conditional Use Permit. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use
plans/policies/regulations, and no impact would occur.
c) The project site is completely developed and is not located within a habitat conservation plan area. Thus,
the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan, and no impacr would occur.
X. MINERAL P.ESCURCES 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 locallt
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
incorporation
❑
❑
❑
Eli
14
0 0
Dan T It%'ilitam Elementary- 5choo' East La Angeler Cullegr Protect
ir::::a1 S:udv'h! ::rated .Neva:i:r Declarauor.
Discussion
is compieteh disturbed, there are ne known mineral resources on the site. The proposed project
a) The site
would not result in tine loss of avaiiabiliry of a known mineral resource, and no impact wouie occur.
b) The site is designated for Public Facilities use in the General Plan and residential use in the Zoning
Ordinance (wit'.. educational use conditionally permitted:) Neither the General Plan nor the Zoning
Ordinance identifies the site as a locall}• important mineral resource recovery site. As such, the proposed
project would not 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, and no impact would occur.
Potential1v Less Than Less Thar: No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
XL NOISE - would the project result in
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
❑
❑
❑
levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies'
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
❑
❑
❑
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
❑
❑
El
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the projecrN
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
❑
❑
❑
D
ambient noise levels in the project viciniry above
levels existing without the project?
C) For a project located within an airport land use
❑
El
❑
❑
plan or, where such a plan has nor 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'
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private
❑
❑
❑
airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion:
a) Giroux and Associates prepared a Noise Impact Study (2006) to assess project-related noise impacts
associated with traffic and parking, assuming that Williams Elementary School facilities would be fully
utilized and that all classrooms would be occupied at the maximum allowable capacity. The proposed
project analyzed in this Initial Study proposes fewer ELAC students/faculty/staff and consequently
p
substantially less traffic and fewer parking spaces. The parking spaces in the proposed project mould
occupy only chat area that is currently paved, not the area around the perimeter of the project sire
analyzed in the Noise Impact Study. Also, the northern driveway would nor be used as the exit point for
departing ELAC students and staff. Instead, the Highcliff Avenue driveway would be the only point of
ingress/egress for ELAC traffic.
On-site parking noise would occur from the arrival and departure of automobiles. Cars on site would be
generally slow moving, and noise associated with such slow-moving vehicles is nor typically significant.
15
•
•
Dan T. U,'ilhamt Elerneniai~, Schoul East Loi Angele, College Projeo
irma' Stud IMrrieared Ne arrvc Dedararion
All cars would enter and exr, the site using the southern driveway; all cars associated with the Head Start
program, would enter and exit the site using the northern driveway. The northern driveway passes
within 30 feet of the nearest home; the caicuiated noise at the closest home wouid be less than the City .s
adopted significance criteria. Thus, noise associated with the proposed project traffic, which would be
farther away from the nearest residences than Head Start traffic (which would exit from the northern
driveway closest the residences) also would be below the City's adopted significance threshold,
b) No activities associated with groundborne vibration or noise are proposed on the protect site.
c) The proposed project would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
protect vicinity above levels existing without the project. Noise associated with on-site parking would
not be sigr,i`cant because project vehiCi~es Wculd likely be slow ;,,ov,r.g, and classes world end by 9:5
PM, ensuring that most vehicles would exit the site prior to 10:00 PM when a much more stringent noise
standard would apply. In addition, traffic associated with the proposed project would increase noise levels by
less than 0.4 dB south of the campus and 0.7 dB north of the campus, which is less than 3 dB, the threshold
for noise detection by the human ear. Thus, a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels would
not occur, and associated impacts would not be significant.
d) A temporary increase in ambient noise levels would not occur at the project site. No construction
activities are to occur with implementation of the proposed project, and no other temporary activities
would occur on the project site. Thus, no temporary noise impacts would occur.
e) The proposed project site is not located in the vicinity of an airport or airport land use plan area. Thus,
associated noise impacts would not occur.
f) The proposed project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Thus, associated noise impacts
would not occur.
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No
Significant
Significant with Significant Impact
Impact
Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
XII POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectlp (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
e) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
I F71
❑
❑
❑
❑
Discussion:
a-c) The proposed project is located in a built-out urban area with no potential sites available or new
facilities; no extension of
development in the vicinity. The proposed project is a reuse of existing school
infrastructure is proposed. Students attending ELAC courses at Williams Elementary School would be
impact generate No houses
college o district; bedisplc would not
transferredi ~~!nated, the
would be
16
0 0
Dan T. U'lilham! Elementary School Eav Lot Angeles Gallege Frg7ect
Inuia. Stud Mttr atetr Ne atror Declaration
PotentialIN
Significant
Impact
Less Than
significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
lmpac:
incorporation
XIII PUBLIC SERVICES
a) would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated wirh the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for neva or physically altered governmenral
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'
El
❑
❑
Discussion:
a) The proposed project would be similar to the existing educational use on the Williams Elementary School
site. The project site would not be altered, except for very minor alterations to the site entrance at
and all
would Casadescribel
public e services intensity
th d
would t not of
increase ifacilities n adult students, but unchanged.
there Avenue,
theree mould be e
below.
Fire Protection. There would not be additional demand for fire protection, as the existing facilities would
remain unaltered, and no new buildings are proposed.
Police Protection. The Los Angeles Sheriffs Department is currently providing security on the project site
and, to address the presence of adult students on campus, will continue to provide security services for
the ELAC programs. The Sheriffs hours of operation will coincide with scheduled classes.
Schools. No residential development is proposed for the site; therefore, no school-aged srudents would be
generated. The project mould have a beneficial impact on schools because the facility would provide
classes for the college-aged students and the community at large.
Parks. Williams Elementary School was a secured, locked facility that was only open during school hours.
The playgrounds and play apparatus were only available to grade-school children during the regularly
scheduled school day. No access to the facilities was available to the community after hours or on the
weekends. As there was no neighborhood park on site and no play opportunities for neighborhood
children, the proposed project would not remove available park area from the City.
No impact would occur to ire and police services, schools, parks, or other public facilities.
• •
Dar. T U!illiami Elemeniao School Earn Lai Angelei College Protect
initial Stud Nfiu ated Ne auve Declaration
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No
Significant
Significant with Significant Impact
Impact
MlEigauon Impact
Incorporation
1IV RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
❑ ❑ ❑
neighborhood and regional parks or orher
recreational facilities such that substanual physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or m
accelerated'
❑ ❑ ❑ Z1
b) Does the prn~ect include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
Discussion:
a) The proposed project would use existing educational facilities, and no new development or residences are
proposed chat would increase the use of existing recreational facilities in the neighborhood and region.
Students and employees of the school would not impact existing park facilities. Refer to response to
Xl11.a (parks) above. As such, use of existing recreational facilities would not be increased such that
facilities deteriorate, and no impact would occur.
b) The proposed use of a school facility for educational purposes would not require the construction of
recreational facilities; existing recreational facilities/equipment for the Head Start program on campus
would remain. As such, no impact would occur.
Potentiall%
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
XV. TRANSPORTATION;TRAFFIC would the
project:
crease in traffic that is substantial in
i
❑
D
❑
❑
n
a) Cause an
Lraffic load and capacity of
i
sting
relation to the ex
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase
in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity rauo on roads, or congestion at
intersections)'
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
❑X
❑
❑
level of service standard established by the counry
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, includme
❑
❑
❑
❑
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks,
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
❑
❑
❑
❑
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
eduiprrient)?
1S
• •
Dar, T Wlilhams ElemeniaY7 School East Loi .4 ngelei College Prg1e7
initial Stud Matt aced Ne wive Declaration
Patentiallp
S:g tliflC8li;
Impact
Less Than
SlgnifiCan; w1Lh
Mitigation
Less Than
S:Qn:fiCan:
impact
No
Impac;
Incorporation
e) Result in inadequate emergency access
❑
77
f~ Result in inadequate parking capaur}'
❑
❑
D
D
gj Conflict with adopted policies; puns, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
D
❑
777
turnouts. bicycle racks)'
Discussion:
a,b) A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Kimley-Horn (2007). The impact analysis evaluate project
traffic at maximum use (627 students/faculry/staff) rather than that proposed for the current project (260
students/faculty/staff). Project trip generation ar full occupancy was estimated to be 355 new trips in the
AM peak hours (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and 282 new trips in the PM peak hours (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM).
The addition of project traffic to existing conditions would cause operations at the intersection of Del Mar
Avenue and Gamey Avenue to deteriorate to an unacceptable level of service (LOS) E in the PM peak
hour, which would constitute a significant project impact. All other study intersections would continue
co operate at an acceptable LOS D or better vvich the addition of project traffic to existing conditions.
Under cumulative conditions, the proposed project at maximum use would contribute to pre-existing
unacceptable conditions at the signalized intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the AM
and peak hour. conributioPAIL other Intersections would continue to operate at LOSrD oorlbetterlong
in a considerable
To mitigate for direct and cumulatively considerable project bimpacts uild out t othetionl Mn are Ave tboun e/ arv ey
Avenue signalized intersection during the PM peak hours at
turn lane will be provided at the intersection. The improvement could be achieved by restnping the
eastbound approach to provide an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane. This can be accomplished within
the existing curb-co-curb width if two on-street parking spaces on the south side of Gamey Avenue are
removed. The south curb on Gamey Avenue is currently painted red (no parking) for 20 feet from the
beginning of the curb rerurn. It is recommended that approximately 35 additional feet of the curb be
painted red along the south curb on Garvey Avenue. Approximately 50 feet of on-street parking area
would remain in front of an existing video store. The project will provide a fair share contribution toward
the above improvements at the Del Mar Avenue/Garvey Avenue intersection. Based on the County of
Los Angeles Traffic Impact analysis Report Guidelines, the project's fair share contribution would be 45
percent. The District, however, has agreed to pay 100 percent of the improvement costs to mitigate for
Elie future build out condition. Implementation of the above-noted measure will mitigate future projecr-
level and cumulative impacts to a less than significant level (i.e., the intersection LOS would improve to
pre-project cumulative conditions (LOS E] in the PM peak hour).
c) The proposed project site is not located in the vicinity of an airport and would not interfere with air traffic
patterns.
d) The project site is located adjacent to an exisring, improved street. A traffic signal was recently installed
at Highcliff Street and Del Mar Avenue to address concerns for pedesrnan safety. Vehicles entering and
exiting the project site would use existing driveways (south driveway for proposed project ingress/egress
and north driveway for Head Starr program ingress/egress). Although traffic volumes to/from the project
site would increase, no dangerous conditions would result from a design feature, and there would be no
significant impacts. In addition, Elie proposed use is consisrent with the existing site use, and associated
impacts would not be significant.
19
0 0
Dan T U'rlGamr Elemeiuar) school Farr Loi Angelo Colkgc Prorecr
Initial scud /lvlrn ared Nevauvc Declaration
e) The project site fronts on Del Mar Avenue. Emergency vehicles have complete and unobstructed access to
.6 impacts would not be significant.
the site. Associate
f? The proposed project would provide a total of 136 parking spaces for ELAC use, nor including the
separate parking spaces along Del Mar Avenue that are associated with the Head Start Program. This
parking supply represents one space for each two students and one space for each staff and faculty osem member. ELAC proposes
fe ei For every 25 tspaare ces, consistent with te park ngysp ceRwou d be
9 feet by pace
parking code requirements,
provided, for a total of 6 handicapped parking spaces
g) The proposed project would not conflict with plans or policies encouraging the development and use of
alternative modes of transportation. The proposed protect would, in fact, implement measures that
would encourage the use of alternate transportation modes, including the provision of a shuttle that
would travel between the main ELAC campus and the Williams Elementary School site to allow for
parking on the main campus. In addition, ELAC has arranged to have the Monterey Park Spirit Bus
(Route 3), which currently provides transportation services along Garvey Avenue and Graves Avenue in
the City of Monterey Park: from 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM Monday through Friday, and from 9:00 AM to
5.45 PM on Saturday, extend its service route such that it operates along Del Mar Avenue, with a stop
directly in front of the project site (Amy Ho, Monterey Park, 007). As such, the proposed project
would not conflict with the provision of alternate transportation modes, and associated impacts would
not be significant.
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant with
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project.
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
❑
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
❑
t facilities or expansion of
e
n
or wastewater treatm
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
❑
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
❑
the proiect from existing entitlements and resources,
anded entitlements needed?
r ex
p
or are new o
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
❑
treatment provider that serves or may serve the
to serve the
cit
y
project that it has adequate capa
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
❑
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
❑ a
❑ a
❑ 0
(1
• •
Dan T. T'zlhamJ Eiementan School East Loi Angeiej Coliege Prolea
inrtia, Studv/Alai pared Nepauv( Declaration
Potenually
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significan: vvirh
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impac;
No
Impact
Incorporation
pernurred
f) Be served by z landfill with sufficient
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
u
F711
disposal needs)
g7 Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste'
❑
❑
❑
D
Discussion
a) The proposed project would occupy existing facilities at Williams Elementary School and would result in a
similar use. Wastewazer requirements for ELAC classes would be slightly more than rhar for the
elementary school due to the anticipated number of students and hours of operation. Wastewater
generation would not exceed wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Qua.hry Control Board;
thus, no impact would result.
b,e) Wastewater requirements for the proposed project would be similar to those for existing site uses.
Wastewater treatment capacity would be sufficient and would nor require the construction of new or
expanded wastewater facilities. Thus, no impact would result.
c) Refer to responses co Section V1I1.
d) Water requirements for the proposed project would be similar to, or slightly more than, those for existing
site uses. Existing water infrastructure on the Williams Elementary School campus would be sufficient to
support the proposed project. Thus, no impact would result.
f) Landfill requirements for the proposed project would be similar to those for existing site uses, and landfill
capacity would be sufficient. Thus, no impact would result.
g) Solid waste disposal requirements for the proposed project would be similar to those for existing site uses
and would comply with solid waste regulations. Thus, no impact would result.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
XVI1. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment; substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory'
1-77
21
0 0
Dar T IrWham; Elementary School East La Angede! Collegr Project
ii:5u3 4ir.raur.',tirrau:-rerlara:im:
Potenualh
Less Than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant with,
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
incorporation
b) Does the project have impacts chat are
❑
❑X
El
El
but cumulatively considerable'
individually bmaed
,
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)'
c) Does the project have environmental effects that
❑
❑
❑
777
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either dirccdy or indirectly?
Discussion:
a) The proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment or significantly impact habitat,
populations, or range of plant or animal species (refer to Section IV). The proposed project would not
eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory (refer to Section V).
b) Under cumulative conditions at maximum facilities utilization, the proposed project would contribute to
pre-existing unacceptable conditions at the signalized intersection of Del Mat Avenue and Garvey
Avenue. The PM peak hour impact would be a significant cumulative impact. To mitigate for impacts
to the intersection, an eastbound right-turn lane would be provided at the degraded intersection;
restriping the eastbound approach to provide an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane would mitigate
project impacts to a less than significant level. This reduction could be achieved using measures
identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis. The project will contribute 100 percent of the cost for the
improvements at the Del Mar Avenue/Garvey Avenue intersection. Implementation of this measure
would ensure chat project-related traffic impacts would be less than significant.
ff n human beings either directly or
c) The proposed project would not cause substantial adverse a ects o
indirectly. This conclusion is based on the above analysis chat found potentially significant impacts
related to traffic and parking. These impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance.