CC - Item 2B - Approval of Negative Declarations of Three Alleys and Street Improvements oon Virginia Street - Box 070TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS
ROSEMECCIITY COUNCIL
FROM: BILL CRCIVE, CITY MANAGER
DATE: JUNE 3, 2003
RE: APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS PREPARED FOR THE
RECONSTRUCTION OF THREE ALLEYS AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS
ON VIRGINIA STREET
Attached for your consideration are Negative Declarations, prepared pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (Section 21000 et. seq. of the Public Resources
Code) for the subject projects. The findings of the Negative Declarations are that the
proposed projects will not have a significant impact on the environment.
Pursuant to Sections 15072 and 15073 of the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines, public notice of the availability, intent to adopt the Negative Declaration and
opportunity for public review of the document were given. The notice was published on
May 19, 2003. No comments were received.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Rosemead City Council approve and adopt the Negative
Declarations.
Attachments
2003rsmd/staff rpt/city
WUNCIL AGENDA
JUN 10 200
ITEM No.
INITIAL STUDY, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST,
AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Project Title: Reconstruction of Three (3) Existing Alleys
along Valley Boulevard and Construction of
Two New Storm Drain Lines
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rosemead
CC338 East Vailey Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
:a
4. Project Location:
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
6. General Plan Designation:.
7. Zoning:
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Ken Rukavina
City Engineer
(626) 569-2150
Alley reconstruction at three locations:
North of Valley Boulevard
• From Bartlett Avenue to east end,
• From Rio Hondo Avenue to east end (with
installation of storm drain improvements),
South of Valley Boulevard
• From Temple City Boulevard to Strang
Avenue, and
Installation of new storm drain improvements
along an alley east of Del Mar Avenue, south
of Dorothy Street. See Figures 1 - 5.
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
Public Right-of-Way
Public Right-of-Way
The proposed project includes four alley locations; three of the alleys are proposed for
reconstruction (with one requiring storm drain improvements) and a fourth alley requiring
only needed storm drain improvements. The alleys proposed for reconstruction are
located just north and south of Valley Boulevard, which is a major east-west commercial
corridor within the City of Rosemead.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -1- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Valley Boulevard is classified as a major arterial within the City's General Plan, serving
predominantly highway commercial uses. The alleys proposed to be reconstructed are
20 feet in width and provide secondary access to the various businesses located along
Valley Boulevard. They also provide rear access to the businesses, utility access (i.e.,
waste, easements, etc.) or secondary parking access. In a few instances, the alleys
also provide access to several residences as well as a trailer park, which border along
one of the alleys.
The alley near Del Mar Avenue, south of Dorothy Street, requires only proposed storm
drain improvements. This alley, similar to the other alley locations, is located adjacent to
existing residential and commercial uses as well-as an elementary school. Del Mar
Avenue is also classified as a major arterial which is a north-south corridor serving
mostly a mix of commercial and light industrial uses with pockets of existing residential
located throughout the corridor. A more detailed description regarding the surrounding
land uses for each of the alley sites are as follows:
Alley No. 1 - North of Valley Boulevard from Bartlett Avenue to East End
The shortest of the three alley locations at 204 feet, this alley provides secondary access
to three commercial businesses, which include a food market, auto repair, and a
restaurant. Surrounding uses include a motel on the east side and single-family homes
along the north side, which do not have alley access and are separated by a block wall
from these commercial properties. Access to the alley is provided from Bartlett Avenue,
a local street, located immediately west of the alley.
MOGV IVU. c -1NUIUI UI VOIIUY UUUICVOIU II U1II I IV nV11UV MVCI IUU W Cam CIIU
Similar to the previous alley location, this alley is also used as an secondary access for a
mix of commercial uses along Valley Boulevard with single-family residences abutting
along the north side of these commercial properties and an office building on the east
side. The alley extends approximately 480 feet and provides access only to the six
commercial businesses as an existing block separates the residential and office uses
from access to the alley. The six businesses abutting the alley include two restaurants,
a produce market, two retail stores, and an auto body repair. Access to the alley is
provided from Rio Hondo Avenue, a local street, located west of the alley.
Alley No. 3 - South of Valley Boulevard from Temple City Boulevard to Strang Avenue
This alley has two segments. The western portion between Temple City Boulevard and
Brookline Avenue provides access to both the commercial retail center on the north side
and several single-family homes (with direct access to garages) on the south side.
There are seven commercial businesses along this segment,. including a medical office,
four retail stores, a beauty salon, and a convenience market. The alley, approximately
260 feet in length, has access from Temple City Boulevard which is a secondary arterial.
The second alley segment continues from. Brookline Avenue to Strang Avenue for
approximately 350 feet. The land uses surrounding this portion of the alley include an
existing trailer park on both sides of the alley at the west end, an auto repair shop, and a
single-family residence on the south side. This alley provides access to the trailer park
homes and the auto repair business; however, a block wall separates the single-family
residence from the alley.
Alley No. 4 - East of Del Mar Avenue from Dorothy Street to South End
Distinct from the other alley locations, this alley is located just east of Del Mar Avenue,
south of Dorothy Street. The alley extends approximately 210 feet south from Dorothy
Street providing access for existing residential and commercial uses on the west side
and access to an elementary school on the east side. At the end of the alley, there is an
existing dry well that receives not only runoff from the alley but also potentially from
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -2- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
adjacent properties. Access to the alley is provided from Dorothy Street which is a Local
Street. All existing uses adjacent to the alley have vehicular access from the alley which
includes two single family residences, a five (5) unit apartment complex, a drive-thru
convenience store and an elementary school. At the south end of the alley, the property
with frontage along Del Mar Avenue has remained undeveloped as vacant land at
present.
Figures 1 and 2, following, depicts the regional location of the project as well as the
specific alley locations in the City of Rosemead and surrounding land uses.
RS:Iss (06190)
14063\0404\Miso-1 (Revised 5.5.03)
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -3- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
FIGURE 1 - PROJECT LOCATION MAP
City of RQse,~
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -4- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
•3AY u3'1 NWO
N X-
i p
r
Q
rc~
N
W X W
u u
z I
O
N
N
O
a o~
m0
m
EN
N
O ~
O
IU
U 2
C
N
m
O
E J
G ~
G
`o m
`nom
a ~
m c
0
m
aW
I
~I
~i
I~
I
~ I
I~ III. ~
~Id OGNOH &i
i I
I
I (I
~ II
I
II
' I
Ig II
I I.
..I
~i
II
I
L'D
~I
I
M N
'W, 6
a~ Z
Q
4
ffi
C Wy N
pW N
W W W
~~II
~ I
S
0
N
~S•
= J
a
y~y
{ W Y
Q
v r~
a co
CO
3Z
eN
Q)
c
Q
~
U
r..
c
m
m
1
Q
C CO
'
E
~ c
m
a~
c c
CO o
¢W
Lv
i C
'1S AH1O21Oa
it r
'i
is
r r
it I li
. r
~ I: I I i
r r:
r
Q~I
r
rmaeaa eaemaramera me.emua ~ur
r
p=
W W
I
ail
N
Ln
N
O
9. Description of Project:
Introduction, Purpose and Need for the Project
The proposed project consists of reconstructing the existing alley pavement at various
locations by replacing the existing asphalt with all concrete paving consisting of 6-inch
thick portland cement concrete. The reconstruction of the alleys would occur, at three
different locations, all within close proximity to Valley Boulevard. The alleys proposed
for reconstruction include:
1) Alley north of Valley, Boulevard from'Bartlett Avenue to east end;
2) Alley north of Valley Boulevard from Rio Hondo Avenue to east end; and
3) Alley south of Valley Boulevard from Temple City Boulevard to Strang Avenue.
The project also includes construction of new storm drain lines to collect storm water
runoff at two alley locations. These storm drain improvements are intended to improve
drainage along these alleys and extend the useful life of these alleys by minimizing
associated damage resulting from ponding or improper flows.
Along the alley north of Valley Boulevard, between Rio Hondo Avenue and its east end,
the new storm drain line will be connected to the existing storm drain system in Valley
Boulevard. Construction of the new storm drain line will require a storm drain easement
over one of the properties located south of the alley. Upon construction of the storm
drain line, the system will be transferred to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District
for operation and maintenance.
These storm drain improvements include approximately 480 linear feet of 24-inch
diameter reinforced concrete storm drain installed beneath the alley- north of Valley
Boulevard (between Rio Hondo and east end of alley), which will be a lateral to the
existing storm drain mainline in Valley Boulevard. The storm drain lateral will be
constructed in a trench approximately 6'/2 to 3'/2 feet wide and at depths ranging
between 4 feet and 9 feet, depending on location. Appurtenant to the storm drain lateral
will be the construction of 3% feet wide catch basin. The storm drain system will be
constructed in the existing public street right-of-way and a utility easement. The project
also includes the installation of concrete paving along the alley.
Construction of storm drain improvements at the south end of the alley of Del Mar
Avenue, south of Dorothy Street, include removing an existing dry well and constructing
a new catch basin, approximately 150 feet of 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe in an
easement extending from the alley west to Del Mar Avenue, and installation of a new
manhole at its junction with an existing Flood Control District Storm Drain in Del Mar
Avenue.
The majority of these actions are Class 2 projects as described in Section 15302 of
Article 19 of the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. Class 2 projects as described
in Article 19 are "replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where
the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have
substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced including, but not
limited to:
(c) Replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities
involving negligible or no expansion of capacity.
(d) Conversion of overhead electric utility distribution system facilities to
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -9- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003 .
underground, including connection to existing overhead electric utility distribution
lines where the surface is restored to the condition existing prior to the
undergrounding."
The Secretary of Resources hay determined Class 2 projects do not have a significant
impact on the environment and, therefore, are categorically exempt from the preparation
of a CEQA document. However, because several of the proposed improvements,
primarily storm drains improvements, are new facilities (not replacement or
reconstruction of existing facilities), the City , has chosen to prepare an Initial
Study/Negative Declaration for the project to consider the potential effects of the project
as a whole and to fully inform the public, adjacent jurisdictions, and concerned agencies
about the proposed project.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement)
The City will obtain the necessary encroachment permit from the County of Los Angeles
to connect the new storm drain with the County mainline facility located under Valley
Boulevard. Required right-of-way will be provided and documented in an access
agreement between the City and the property owner. The project has been included and
documented in the City's current Pavement Management System.
11. References
The following are also referenced where appropriate in the Environmental Checklist
Form:
a. City of Rosemead, California, General Plan, Adopted 1987 _
b. City of Rosemead, Pavement Management System, Adopted 1998
C. South Central Coastal Information Center, Department of Archaeology, California
State University Fullerton, January 8, 2003.
d. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook, 1993.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -10- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant h,ipact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Agriculture Resources
❑ Air Quality
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Geology /Soils
❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
❑Hydrology / Water Quality
❑ Land Use/ Planning
❑ Mineral Resources
❑ Noise
❑ Population / Housing
❑ Public Services
_
❑ Recreation
❑ Transportation / Traffic
❑ Utilities / Service Systems
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
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.
❑ 1 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.
❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ 1 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 beer. address 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 that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Printed Name
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -11-
Environmental Initial Study
Date
For
City of Rosemead
May 2003
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 factor as well as
general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis.) T
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as
onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then
the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less
than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. 'Potentially Significant Impact' is
appropriate if there is substantial, evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe
the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be
cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiring, 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.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -12- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead,agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that
are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -13- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST:
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
AESTHETICS
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
'
Incorporation
Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
❑
❑
❑
❑x
b)
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,. and historic
❑ -
❑
❑
0 -
buildings within a state scenic highway?
.
c)
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
❑
❑
❑
quality 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
❑
❑
_ ❑
El
area? s
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
l(a). No Impact. The project will reconstruct three alley locations near Valley Boulevard and
install storm drains at 'two other locations, one of them concurrent with the alley
reconstruction. Although some temporary visual impacts within this residential-
commercial area due to construction activities will occur, this project will not have
substantial adverse impacts on a scenic vista.
I(b). No Impact. See Response I(a).
I(c). No Impact. See Response I(a).
I(d). No Impact. The project consists of alley and storm drain improvements where impacts
from light and glare would not result from implementation of the project.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -14- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
II AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
significant
with
'significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies m- iy -:fer 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
1. 1:1-
❑
❑
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) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which
due to their location or nature, could result ir.^onversion
-
❑X
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? '
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
II(a).. No Impact. The project locations are not used for agricultural purposes and do not
include prime, unique, or important farmland. These project areas are committed to
urban uses.
II(b). No Impact. There is no conflict with the Williamson Act since there are no agricultural
resources along the project right of way.
II(c). No Impact. See Response II(a).
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
III AIR QUALITY
Significant
Significant
Significant
No Impact
'
Impact
With Mitigation
Impact
incorporation
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control district
maybe relief upon to make the. following determinations. Would
the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
❑
❑
IF]
air quality plan?
-
violate any air quality standard or contribute
F)
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
❑
❑
❑
❑
violation?
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
❑
❑
El
air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
❑
❑
❑
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting. a substantial
❑
❑
❑
number of people?
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements 15- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
III(a). No Impact. The project is to replace existing alley paving and install storm drains.
Thus, no increase in travel or vehicle emissions will be associated with the completed
project. Any air quality imparts that would result from the project would be temporary
resulting from short-term construction activity. The only air pollutant that would be
emitted from the project would be fugitive dust, which is typical of any construction site.
Consequently, the project does not exceed the thresholds of significance established by
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 1993).
Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the air quality
plan and would have no corresponding impacts.
III(b). No Impact. The completed project would not result in an increase of any air pollutant
emissions. The only air pollutant emitted from the project during construction would be
fugitive dust. The emission of fugitive dust would be reduced to a minimum as required
by SCAQMD Rule 403. Therefore, the project would not violate any air quality standards
and would have no corresponding impacts.
III(c). No Impact. The only air pollutant that would be emitted from the proposed project
would be fugitive dust, which is typical of any construction site. The release of fugitive
dust during construction would not contribute to cumulative air pollution with compliance
to SCAQMD Rule 403. Therefore, the project would have no impact in this regard.
III(d). Less than Significant Impact. As discussed, the only air pollutant that would be
emitted from the proposed project would be fugitive dust, which is typical of any
construction site. This emission would terminate after construction. Furthermore, the
release of fugitive dust would be reduced to a minimum as required by SCAQMD Rule
403. Therefore, the project would not release substantial pollutant concentrations, and
would have a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors.
III(e). Less than Significant Impact. The alley reconstruction and storm drain installation
would not release any odors. However, development of the project could release typical
construction odors. These odors would cease at the completion of construction.
Furthermore, any odors emitted during construction would be local and do not have the
potential to affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, the project would have a
less than significant impact from odors.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -16- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
IV
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
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 U.S. 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,
❑
1:1
❑
0
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
,
d)
Interfere substantially with the movement of bny native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
E]
E]
0
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
El
❑
❑
❑x
or ordinance?
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
❑
E
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
IV(a). No Impact: The proposed project involves the reconstruction and improvement of
existing facilities within an urban setting. The project would not affect any native
vegetation, or any habitat used by native wildlife. Therefore, the project would have no
impact on threatened, endangered, or otherwise special status species.
IV(b). No Impact: The project would be limited to existing infrastructure within an urban
environment. Therefore, the project would have no impact to riparian habitat or an
established natural community.
IV(c). No Impact: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act protects wetlands, which it defines as
lands that are dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, contain hydric soils, and are
inundated with water for at least two weeks of the growing season. As discussed, the
project is located within a surrounding urban environment that does not support a natural
community. The existing infrastructure is impermeable and not capable of supporting
vegetation. Therefore, the project would have no impact to wetlands.
IV(d). No Impact: The project would be limited to existing infrastructure, and the project does
not contain any native vegetation, or any habitat used by native wildlife. Therefore, the
project would have no impact to wildlife travel corridors, to the movement of any
migratory or resident species, or-to native wildlife nursery sites.
IV(e). No Impact: The project would be limited to existing infrastructure, and would not impact
any vegetation. Therefore, the project would have no impact to any local policy or
ordinance that protects biological resources.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -17- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
IV(f). No Impact: The project would be limited to existing infrastructure, and the project does
not contain any native vegetation, or any habitat used by native wildlife. Therefore, the
project would have no impact to a habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or otherwise established habitat conservation plan.
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
V
CULTURAL RESOURCES
significant
with
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
Would the project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
?
❑
❑
❑
of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5
b)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant ':o Section
❑x
❑
❑
15064.5?
c)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
❑
❑
❑
resource or site or unique geological feature?
.
d)
Disturb any human remains,' including those interred
❑
❑
❑
outside of formal cemeteries?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
V(a). No Impact: The proposed project does not involve the demolition or alteration of any
historic or culturally significant structures. In addition, the alley reconstruction and storm
drain improvements are not located within a historic district. Therefore, the project would
have no impact to historic resources.
V(b, d). Less than Significant Impact After Mitigation: The South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC) maintains a database of known and potential cultural
resources sites. The SCCIC does not anticipate any cultural resources to exist at any of
the alley and storm, drain improvement locations. However, the SCCIC recommends a
halt-work condition be put in place in the event that cultural resources or human remains
are encountered during construction. Therefore, incorporation of Mitigation Measure V-1
would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure V-1: If cultural resources are encountered during construction,
development of the project shall halt and shall not resume until a professional
archaeologist assesses the findings.
V(c). Less than Significant Impact After Mitigation: The proposed project involves the
reconstruction of alleys within existing right-of-way and installation of storm drains along
established roadways. The project does not involve excavation of previously unaltered
surfaces, however excavation activities could penetrate below human altered soils.
Therefore, the project has the potential to encounter paleontological resources or unique
geological features. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure V-2 would ensure potential
impacts to these resources be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure V-2: If paleontological resources or unique geological features are
encountered during construction, development of the project shall halt and shall not
resume until a professional paleontologist assesses the findings.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -18- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
VI
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
•
Incorporation
Would the project:
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-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
. a
-
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
X
❑
iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
❑
❑
❑
-
iv) Landslides?
El
1K
1:1
b)
Result in substantal soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
❑
❑
FE
❑
C)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
❑
❑
~
1:1
and potentially result in on or offsite 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
❑
❑
❑
x
❑
risk to life or property?
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
'
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
❑
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
-
wastewater?
-
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
VI(a)i). No Impact: The City of Rosemead is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone,
and accordingly, no active faults are known or suspected in the City of Rosemead.
Therefore, the project would not be affected by a known earthquake fault and would
have no corresponding impact to people or structures. (City of Rosemead General Plan)
VI(a)ii). Less than Significant Impact:' The project site is subject to seismic ground shaking.
The Raymond Hill fault is approximately two miles north of the City and the Whittier-
Elsinore fault is approximately five miles southeast of the City. Both faults are capable
of causing earthquakes. The proposed project, however, would not increase the amount
of people or structures exposed to or otherwise intensify the affects of potential
earthquakes. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact from
ground shaking. (City of Rosemead General Plan)
VI(a)iii). Less than Significant Impact: The City of Rosemead's General Plan Figure PS-1
identifies areas of the City that are susceptible to potential safety hazards, including
liquefaction. The project is not located within a liquefaction hazard area. In addition, the
project would not increase the amount of people or structures exposed to or otherwise
intensify the affects of liquefaction. Therefore the project would have a less than
significant impact from liquefaction. (City of Rosemead General Plan)
VI(a)iv). Less than Significant Impact: The project would not increase the amount of people
or structures exposed to or otherwise intensify the affects of landslides since the project
area topography is flat. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact
from landslides.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -19- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
VI(b). Less than Significant Impact: The project involves the excavation of soil. However,
construction would be limited to existing right-of-way and would not result in the removal
of topsoil. In addition, the project would not increase the amount of impervious surfaces
and would not contribute to water or wind velocity. Therefore, the project would have a
less than significant impact to soil erosion and topsoil.
VI(c). Less than Significant Impact: As discussed, the City of Rosemead has the potential to
experience strong ground shaking. However, the project site is not within a natural
hazard area of the City as identified on Figure-PS-1 of the City's General Plan. In
addition, the project site is not within an Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone since no
active faults are suspected within the City: Therefore, the project would have a less than
significant impact from geologic or soil instability. (City of Rosemead General Plan)
VI(d). Less than Significant Impact: ,The project requires only minimal excavation and would
not pierce any underlying bedrock. In addition, the project is not within the flood hazard
or liquefaction hazard zones of the City. The project would also meet all engineering
requirements of the City of Rosemead. Therefore, the project would have a less than
significant impact from expansive soils. (City of Rosemead General Plan)
VI(e). No Impact: The project involves infrastructure improvements and would not be a
generator of wastewater. Consequently, the project would not require a septic tank.
Therefore, the project would have no impact from soils incapable of supporting septic
tanks.
Less Than
VII
HAZARDS AND
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
HAZARDOLISMATERIALS
Impact
Mitigation
impact
Incorporation
Would the project ,
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
❑
0
_
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
0
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
❑
❑
❑
❑
x
,
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
;
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
❑
❑
❑
0
working in the project area?
g)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
0
❑
evacuation plan?
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -20- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Less Than
VII HAZARDS AND
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
HAZARDOUSMATERIALS
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
-
injury or death involving wildland fires, incluamg where
❑
❑
a
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
VII(a-b). Less than Significant Impact: The completed project would not be a generator of
hazardous materials. Furthermore, there are no known hazardous waste generators or
storage sites in the project area (EPA Enviromapper/Envirofacts, 5/28/02). Equipment
and vehicles used during construction of the project could contain gasoline, diesel fuel,
motor oil, or transmission fluid:. However, equipment would be handled using Best
Management Practices, and would not generate significant hazards to the public.
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact from hazardous
materials.
VII(I). Less than Significant Impact: As discussed, the only hazardous materials involved in
the project would be the fuel and lubrication fluids of construction equipment. The
release of these materials is not anticipated since Best Management Practices will be
used during construction. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant
impact from hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school.
VII(d). No Impact: As discussed, there are no known hazardous waste generators or storage
sites in the project area (EPA Enviromapper/Envirofacts, 5/28/02). Therefore, the
project is not located on a site that is included on a compiled list of hazards materials
sites and would have no associated impacts.
VII(e-f). No Impact: The closest airport to the City is the El Monte Airport, located 2.3 miles to
the northeast. The project site is not located within the runway clear zones for the El
Monte Airport (El Monte Airport Layout Plan, approved by the FAA 1-22-96). Therefore,
the project would have no impact from the hazards associated with proximity to airports.
VII(g). Less than Significant Impact: The project could temporarily disrupt circulation on
Valley Boulevard. However, temporary traffic disruption will be minimized by maintaining
traffic flow during construction and limiting all work to midweek, off-peak hours.. The
completed project would not be a generator of traffic and would not alter any traffic
patterns. Therefore, the project would have no impact to emergency response or
evacuation plans.
VII(h). No Impact: The project is located in and surrounded by urban land. Consequently, the
project is not within an area where wildfires occur. Therefore, there would be no impact
from wildfires.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -21- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Less Than
VIII
HYDROLOGY AND WATER
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
QUALITY
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
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 that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
❑
. ❑
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
C)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
❑
❑
❑
❑
result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite?
d)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem 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 which
would result in flooding on or offsite?
e)
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage.
❑
❑
❑
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff.
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
-
1:1
E]
1K
Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h)
Place within a 100-year flood hazard a ea structures
i
d fl
f
❑
❑
❑
which would impede or red
rect
loo
ows.
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
❑
❑
1:1
❑
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
J)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑
❑
❑
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
VIII(a). Less Than Significant Impact: The use of the completed project would not generate
any additional water pollutants. However, during construction, sedimentation from the
project site could be greater than during normal conditions. This sedimentation would
be reduced to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the requirements of
the Nation Pollution Discharge Emission System (NPDES). Therefore, the project would
not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and would have
no associated impacts.
VIII(b). No Impact: As discussed, the project involves reconstruction of existing alleys and
installation of the storm drain improvements along existing roadways. This action would
not create additional impervious surfaces that may increase water flows or affect the
boundaries of any watersheds. Therefore, the project would have no impact on
groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -22- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
VIII(c-d): No Impact: As discussed, the project would not alter surface water flows and would
not affect the boundaries of any watersheds. Additionally, the project would not change
the amount of runoff discharged from the site. Therefore, the project would have no
impact to the existing drainage pattern, or surface water flows of the site or area.
VIII(e). Less than Significant Impact: The project would not increase the amount of
impervious surfaces, and consequently, would not change the amount of runoff from the
project site. However, during construction, sedimentation from the project site could be
greater than during normal circumstances. Thus, the project has the potential to pollute
runoff. However, sedimentation would be reduced to the maximum extent practicable in
accordance with the requirements of the Nation Pollution Discharge Emission System
(NPDES). Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact to the storm
water drainage system.
a
VIII(f). No Impact: The project does not involve the generation or use of any water pollutants
other than sediment transport and the fuel and lubrication fluids of construction
equipment. Therefore, the project would not otherwise degrade water quality and would
have no associated impacts. ,
VIII(g). No Impact: As discussed, the. project involves infrastructure improvements and does
not involve the development of flood-sensitive uses. Furthermore, this project is located
outside the 100-year and 500-year floodplains (FEMA FIRM map Community No.
060153A, issued April 15, 1979). Therefore, the project would not place housing or
otherwise flood-sensitive uses within a 100-year floodplain.
VIII(h). No Impact: The proposed project improvements are not capable of altering flood flows.
In addition, the project site is not within the 100-year or 500-year floodplains (FEMA
FIRM map Community No. 060153A, issued 4-15-79). Therefore, the project would
have no impact from impeding or redirecting flood flows.
VIII(i). No Impact: The Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan identifies the flood
hazards in the City. Since the City is not within 100-year or 5007year floodplains as
identified by FEMA, the only flood hazard in the City is the floodwater stored behind the
Whittier Narrows. The release of water from Whittier Narrows could cause flooding in
the southeastern portion of the City. The project site is not within this potential flood
area. In addition, the project does not involve the development of flood-sensitive uses.
Therefore, the project would have no impact from potential flooding of levees or dams.
(City of Rosemead General Plan)
VIII(j). No Impact: The City is approximately 23 miles from the Pacific Ocean. In addition, the
project site is not within the potential flood area of Whittier Narrows, and not within a
potential liquefaction area (City of Rosemead General Plan, Figure PS-1). Therefore,
the project would have no impact from potential tsunami, seiche, or mudflow.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -23- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
IX
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
Would the project:
a)
Physically divide an established community?
❑
❑
❑
b)
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
❑
❑
❑
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
_
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c)
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
❑
❑
❑
I'm
natural community conservation plan?
u
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
IX(a). No Impact: As discussed, the project involves the reconstruction of existing alleyways
and installation of storm drain improvements. This action would not alter circulation and
would not impose any physical barriers. Therefore, the project would have no impact to
established communities.
IX(b). Less Than Significant Impact: The installation of the storm drain improvements will
require access easements to install new storm drain improvements. Although
construction of these improvements may cause some temporary disruptions to local
traffic and adjacent businesses, it is not expected that these disruptions will result in
closure to traffic or deny access to the adjacent businesses. Temporary inconveniences
related to construction activity and alteration of pedestrian and,circulation patterns may
result. Otherwise, the project would not conflict with land use plans, policies, or the
regulations of any agencies and would have no long-term associated impacts.,
IX(c). No Impact: As discussed, the project would be limited to infrastructure improvements ,
and would not impact any vegetation. Therefore, the project would have no impact to
habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans.
Less Than
-
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
X MINERAL RESOURCES
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
❑
E]
❑x
the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
❑
E]
0
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
X(a-b). No Impact: The City is underlain by Holocene and Pleistocene aged alluvium with an
approximate thickness of 5,000 to 6,000 feet. The alluvium is underlain by sedimentary
rock. Although the project may require excavation to install the storm drain
improvements, the project is located within a urban setting where no known mineral
resources are known to exist nor are documented within the General Plan. Therefore,
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -24- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
the project would not affect mineral resources and would have no associated impacts.
(City of Rosemead General Plan, Health and Safety, Page VIA)
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
XI
NOISE
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
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
d b
ib
i
d b
i
l
l
?
❑
❑
P71
❑
groun
ome v
eve
rat
on or groun
ome no
se
s
.
C)
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels exisung without
❑
❑
❑
191
the project?
d)
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
❑
El
❑
❑
without the project?
,
a)
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
E
❑
El
0
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
11
El
El
❑
project area to excessive noise levels?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XI(a, d). Less Than Significant Impact: The project does not involve the development of noise
generators or sensitive noise receptors. However, construction of the project could
produce noise from equipment and operations in conflict with the noise standards
identified on Figure N-1 and Table N-1 of the City's General Plan. Construction noise
would be reduced in accordance with the City's noise ordinances and would cease with
the completion of construction. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant
noise impact
XI(b). Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the project could produce vibrations
above normal levels in the areas surrounding the project site. These vibrations would be
temporary and would cease with the completion of construction. Therefore, the project
would have a less than significant impact from vibrations.
XI(c). No Impact: As discussed, the project involves the reconstruction of existing alleyways
and installation of storm drain improvements. This action does not involve the
development of any permanent noise generators. Therefore, the project would not alter
permanent ambient noise levels and would have no associated impacts.
XI(e-f). No Impact: The nearest airport (public or private) is the El Monte Airport, which is 2.3
miles northeast of the project site. Furthermore, the project does not involve the
development of sensitive noise receptors. Therefore, the project would have no impacts
from airport-generated noise.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -25- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
XII
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
Would the project
a)
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
❑
❑
❑
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b)
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
.3 -
- ❑
-
❑
❑X
elsewhere?
C)
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
h
f
l
h
i
l
h
?
i
❑
❑
❑
t
e construct
on o
rep
acement
ous
ng e
sew
ere
Explanation of Checklist Judgmerif'.
XII(a). Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed, the project involves infrastructure
improvements. This action would not directly increase the population or housing in the
City. The proposed infrastructure improvements are intended to correct existing
drainage problems and replace deteriorating alleyways without increasing capacity.
Since the drainage improvements will principally service the alleyways, it is expected
that the project will not result in an increase of residential demand. Therefore, the
project would have a less than significant impact from population growth.
XII(b-c). No Impact: As discussed, the project involves various infrastructure improvements.
Despite the need to obtain access easements on several commercial properties to
construct the improvements, it is not expected that the project will impact those
businesses nor result in the loss of any residential units. Therefore, the project would
not displace any residents and would have no associated impact.
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
XIII PUBLIC SERVICES
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
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?
a) Fire protection?
❑
❑
❑
b) Police protection?
❑
.11
0
❑
C) Schools?
❑
❑
❑
d) Parks?
❑
❑
1E
❑
e) Other public facilities?
❑
❑
. Fm,
❑
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -26- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XIII(a). Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the
development of residences and would not significantly induce growth. Consequently,
the amount of people served bxl local fire protection services would not increase as a
result of the project. However, the project could temporarily disrupt' circulation on the
involved streets. The completed project would not be a generator of traffic and would
not alter any traffic patterns. Coordination with local fire authorities to determine detours
during construction is expected. Therefore, impacts to fire protection would be less than
significant.
a
XIII(b). Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the
development of residences and would not significantly induce growth. Consequently,
the amount of people served by local police protection services would not increase as a
result of the project. However„the project could temporarily disrupt circulation on the
involved streets. The completed project would not be a generator of traffic and would
not alter any traffic patterns. Coordination with local police authorities to determine
detours during construction is expected. Therefore, impacts to police protection would
be less than significant. '
XIII(c). Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the
development of residences and would not significantly induce growth. Consequently,
the amount of people served by local school system would not increase as a result of the
project. One school exists in the project vicinity, Emerson School. The project could
temporarily disrupt circulation on the involved streets during construction and could
temporarily disrupt access to Emerson School. However, circulation and access to the
school would return to existing conditions after the project is complete. Therefore, the
project would have a less than significant impact to schools.
XIII(d). Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the
development of residences and would not significantly induce growth. Consequently,
the use of public parks would not increase as a result of the project. In addition, the
project involves the on-site replacement of streetlights and would not directly impact any
parks. However, access to the community park along Dorothy Avenue could be
disrupted during construction. This disruption would be temporary and would cease
when construction is completed. Therefore, the project would have a less than
significant impact to parks.
XIII(e). Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the
development of residences and would not significantly induce growth. Consequently,
the use of or need for public facilities would not increase as a result of the project. In
addition, the project involves the reconstruction of existing alleyways and various storm
drain improvements that would improve access and drainage along the noted existing
right-of-way. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact to public
facilities.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -27- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
XIV RECREATION
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
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?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XIV(a-b). No Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the development of residences
and would not significantly indu,:e growth. Consequently, the use of public parks would
not increase as a result of the project. In addition, the project involves infrastructure
improvements to reconstruct existing alleyways and install various storm drain
improvements and would not directly impact any parks. Therefore, the project. would not
physically deteriorate any existing parks and would not cause the need for additional
parks.
'
Less Than
-
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
XV
TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
Would the project:
a)
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
_
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
❑
0
❑X
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
-
b)
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
❑
❑
❑
❑x
management agency for designated roads or highways?
C)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
❑
❑
❑
0
results in substantial safety risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
❑
E]
❑
❑
Incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
❑X
❑
f)
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑
❑
❑
g)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -28- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XV(a, b, d). No Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the development of
residences and would not significantly induce growth. In addition, the project does not
involve the development of ?ny traffic generators. Consequently, the use of
transportation facilities would not increase as a result of the project; and the project
would not affect levels of service, and would not increase road hazards. Therefore, the
project would have no traffic volume or associated impacts.
XV(c). No Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the development of residences,
businesses, or industry and would not significantly induce growth or the need for air
travel. In addition, the nearest airport is El Monte Airport, which is 2.3 miles northeast.
The project would not affect the flight patterns of airplanes using this or any other airport.
Therefore, the project would have no impact to air travel.
XV(e). Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the
development of residences, businesses, or industry and would not significantly induce
growth or the need for emergency services. However, the project could temporarily
.disrupt access and circulation on' the involved alleys and city streets. Any of the
businesses temporarily affected by construction will be informed of the proposed work to
minimize any inconveniences which may result from the project. Work along city streets
will include appropriate traffic controls to divert traffic and maintain traffic flow through
the work area during construction. In addition, construction work within the public right-
of-way will be limited to off-peak traffic demand periods to minimize impacts to the
traveling public and adjacent businesses. Coordination with local emergency service
providers to determine detours during construction is expected. Therefore, impacts to
emergency access would be less than significant.
XV(f). Less Than Significant Impact: The only parking the project would require is during
construction. Construction equipment and vehicles would require temporary parking.
However, this need for parking would be during regular workday and non-peak hours,
when oh-street parking demand will be less than evening or peak travel periods.
Although, there may be a limited short-term loss of on-street parking during construction,
the amount of parking temporarily displaced will not be sufficient to result in an
inadequate parking capacity. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant
impact to parking.
XV(g). Less Than Significant Impact: The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)
provides bus service to the City. The roadway involved in the project that is used by the
MTA is Valley Boulevard. Since the project could temporarily disrupt circulation on
Valley Boulevard, public transit could be affected. However, any impacts to public transit
would be temporary and can be minimized by coordinating with MTA officials to relocate
affected stop locations, if necessary, during construction. Therefore, the project would
have a less than significant impact to alternative transportation.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -29- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Less Than
XVI
UTILITIES AND SERVICE
Potentially
significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
SYSTEMS
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
Would the project.,
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
l W
li
l B
?
❑
❑
❑
applicable Regiona
ater Qua
ty Contro
oard
.
b)
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
❑
❑
❑
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c)
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
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
E]
❑
❑
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e)
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'q projected
❑
❑
~X
demand in addition to the providers existing
commitments?
t)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
g)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
❑
❑
❑
regulations related to solid waste?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XVI(a). No Impact: As discussed, the project involves various infrastructure improvements and
would not impact wastewater treatment facilities. This action would not increase the
generation of wastewater. Therefore, the project would not exceed wastewater
treatment requirement of the Los Angeles Region Water Quality Control Board and
would have no associated impacts.
XVI(b, d, e). No Impact: As discussed, the project would not increase the need for water or the
generation of wastewater. Therefore the project would not require or result in the
alteration of water or wastewater treatment facilities.
XVI(c). No Impact: As discussed, the project involves the reconstruction of alleyways and the
installation of'storm drain improvements. Reconstruction of the alleys would be limited
to existing infrastructure where no increase in paving area will be provided. Despite the
installation of new storm drain improvements to improve drainage flow problems from
several alley locations, the project will not result in an increase in impervious surfaces
that would result in an increase in urban runoff.
XVI(f). Less Than Significant Impact: The project involves the reconstruction of the existing
alleys and proposed storm drain improvements. The completed reconstruction will
generate excess concrete and asphalt material during the demolition of the existing alley
prior to installation of the new concrete paving. Thus, development of the project could
produce inert fill. Due to the size of the project and the minimal excavation required,
however, adequate facilities exist to accept the solid waste generated during
construction. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact to solid waste
disposal.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -30- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
XVI(g). No Impact: Disposal of waste materials generated during construction will comply with
all local, state, and federal requirements for integrated waste management (e.g.,
recycling, green waste) and solid waste disposal.
Less Than
XVII
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
SIGNIFICANCE
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
Does the project:
a)
Does the project have the potential to degrade the •
°
v
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 examoles 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,
❑
❑
❑
❑x
either directly or indirectly?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XVII(a). No Impact: The project involves various infrastructure improvements to reconstruct
existing alleyways and to install storm drain improvements. Construction of the two
storm drain projects would require easements from adjacent properties to install the
planned improvements. The alley reconstruction would be limited to existing public right-
of-way. In addition, the project site is within a completely developed area that does not
support substantial populations of native vegetation or wildlife and does not support any
special status species. Therefore, the project would have no impact on wildlife habitats.
XVII(b). Less Than Significant Impact: The project involves the reconstruction of alleyways
and the installation of storm drain improvements. Reconstruction of the alleys would be
limited to existing infrastructure where no increase in paving area will be provided.
Despite the installation of new storm drain improvements (to eliminate drainage flow
problems from several alley locations), the project will not result in an increase in
impervious surfaces that would result in an increase in urban runoff. The project would
benefit adjacent uses by reducing drainage flows onto adjacent properties and
minimizing ponding along these alley locations. Individually, the project may contribute
to a minimal increase in storm water runoff within the vicinity of the proposed project.
However, the project is also located within an urban setting where no new construction is
anticipated that will contribute to an increase in storm water runoff. Although the
drainage improvements may potentially increase storm water runoff within the project
area, any increase in runoff is expected to be minimal since the project will not result in
additional paving area for runoff while also providing improved drainage as well as
ensuring safety and access along the project alleys. Therefore, the project would have
less than significant cumulative impacts.
XVII(c). No Impact: As discussed in Sections VI, VII, and VIII, the project would have no
impact to the environment that would cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings.
Alley and Storm Drain Improvements -31- City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
INITIAL STUDY, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
Construction of street improvements on
Virginia Street and the extension of
Strathmore Avenue between Garvey Avenue
and Virginia Street to improve traffic access
and circulation for adjacent residents and
businesses. Other improvements include
.installation .-of new street lights and
construction of storm drain lines. Upon the
completion of the proposed improvements,
Denton Avenue will be relinquished to the Los
Angeles Dealer Auto Auction (LADAA) for its
use and operations.
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
6. General Plan Designation:
7. Zoning:
Ken Rukavina
City. Engineer
(626) 569-2150
The' street improvements (including new curb
and; gutter, driveways, and sidewalks) are
proposed at these locations:
Virginia Street
• Dedicate an existing private street for a
new west terminus (as a cul-de-sac)
Closure of east terminus as.a cul-de-sac
(w/street vacation of Denton Avenue)
Strathmore Avenue
• Extend Strathmore Avenue north of
Garvey Avenue to Virginia Street.
Install new streetlights and storm drain
improvements along both Virginia Street and
Strathmore Avenue. See Figures 1 and 2.
City, of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Boulevard
RosIemead, California 91770
Public Right-of-Way, Medium Density
Residential and Commercial
Public Right-of-Way, Medium Commercial
(C3), Light Multiple Residential (R2), and
Parking (P)
Virginia St and Strathmore Ave. Improvements
Environmental Initial Study
City of Rosemead
May 2003
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings.
The proposed project includes street modifications and improvements along Virginia
Street and the extension of Strathmore Avenue north of Garvey Avenue. The proposed
street improvements would enhance access to and operations of the Los Angeles Dealer
Auto Auction (LADAA) facility and while maintaining vehicular access for the residential
properties located along Virginia Street.
Located along the north side of Garvey Avenue and several blocks east of Del Mar
Avenue, the LADAA facility is shared between two adjacent sites, separated by Denton
Avenue. Denton Avenue also serves as the only vehicle access for the single-family
homes located along Virginia Street. These homes, located adjacent and immediately
north of the LADAA site, currently share access and circulation along both Virginia Street
and Denton Avenue with the operations of the LADAA. Other surrounding land uses
include additional single-family homes to the west which front along Brighton Street, and
mostly retail establishments along Garvey Avenue.
A brief description of the surrounding area and streets is provided below.
Virginia Street
Virginia Street, serving the single-family homes as well as the commercial uses
associated with the Auto Auction operation, is classified as a Local Street within the
City's General Plan. Virginia Street has an east-west orientation and lies within an
existing 40-foot public right-of-way providing two lanes of traffic with permitted on-street
parking on both sides of the street. The west end of the street terminates into a private
street which provides access to LADAA and adjacent residences. On the east end of
Virginia Street, a modified "T". intersection provides access to Garvey Avenue via Denton
Avenue as well as access to the east side lot of the Auto Auction facility.
Denton Avenue
Denton Avenue, a north-south roadway, is classified as a Local Street within the City's
General Plan. Similar to Virginia Street, Denton Avenue also lies within a 40-foot public
right-of-way accommodating two lanes of travel and on-street parking along both sides
of the street. Denton Avenue is bordered on both sides by the LADAA facility which
currently provides a gated entry drive on each side of the street. As a side street from
the commercial corridor of Garvey Avenue, Denton Avenue provides a critical outlet for
the residential properties, along Virginia Street and a principal means of access to
various parts of the Auto Auction facilities. Because the north leg of Denton Avenue is
offset approximately 300 feet west of the south leg, the northerly extension of Denton
Avenue results in a "T" intersection at Garvey Avenue. This intersection is provided with
a STOP control on Denton Avenue with left-turn ingress/egress on Garvey Avenue.
Garvey Avenue
Garvey Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial within the City's General Plan, serving
predominantly highway commercial uses. Garvey Avenue is one of several major east-
west commercial corridors located within the City of Rosemead. In addition to the Auto
Auction facility, surrounding uses adjacent to the project include other small, retail
commercial establishments along Garvey Avenue. No direct access is provided from
Garvey Avenue along that portion of Auto Auction located west of Denton Avenue. A
single access is provided from Garvey Avenue along the eastern frontage of LADAA,
serving only customers or other short term visitors. As one of the City's major
commercial corridors, Garvey Avenue has four travel lanes (two in each direction), a left
Virginia St and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 2 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
turn median, and on-street parking on both sides of the street within the vicinity of the
project.
Figures 1 and 2, below, depict the regional location of the project as well as the specific
street improvements and surrounding land uses.
RS:M(06190)
14083104MR01
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 3 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
FIGURE 1 - PROJECT LOCATION MAP
City of 1Zwmaa&
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 4 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
(03"OVA 38 Old '3AV NOIN30
•n na9a1 a
voo-cso-cazs
F
MEMEMI
0
Q
•n wow uu
2
zs
soo-cso-ca
~
C
u now acu
too-LCP-cStS
W
•u nor as<
,
uo-cro-cvxs
Z
-n now USE
foo-LSO-LSLS
•n new ant.
v~o-cso-cvxs
Q
Q
•u VYa'JN SIZE
too-LSO-LSLS
•n.now at".
"
.
-
Loo-LSo-cvm
10
•u rwow VOL
♦~o-eso-cazs
•u .wow st~E
rxo-vco-cvzs
'u newN tmE
ew-vso-LVZs
'n nxaix ICU
Zlo-SSO-LSZS
IZ
IS NOIND1110
aM
mo
mo
Q N
Q) t
h to
O
a
a
U
W
0
F-
I-
~
.a
15 C§
U
~
;
W
0
Q
io"dBO
M
N
W
2
Ix
®
I~I I
~
ll.
W
7
Z
W
Q
Y
W
1
C
Q
O
i
J
Description of Project:
Introduction, Purpose and Need for the Project
Virginia Street is in need of rehabilitation. However, this work had been deferred
pending the resolution of how to realign the street outlet for the neighborhood, and allow
the LADAA to consolidate their parcels for a more efficient and less disruptive operation.
One option that was considered included extending Virginia Street to the west, to allow
access onto Brighton Avenue. However, after review by local residents, it was
determined that this option was not feasible due to the disruption it would have caused
to that neighborhood and the surrounding community. Since then, LADAA acquired
several more parcels to their west, over which a new outlet from Virginia Street to
Garvey Avenue can be constructed. This new street will align with Strathmore Avenue.
LADAA will dedicate the necessary right-of-way for the new Strathmore Avenue to the
City, who will in turn vacate Denton Avenue subsequent to construction. This will allow
for the LADAA to consolidate the majority of their operations to the east of the new
Strathmore Avenue; hence, significantly reducing conflicts and disruptions to the
neighborhood as they now occur on Denton Avenue.
On October 14, 2002, staff conducted a neighborhood meeting to present the issues
associated with the project and the proposed alignment of Strathmore Avenue, and to
solicit their input. Overall, the project as proposed was well received and the consensus
was to pursue the project.
The majority of Virginia Street lies within an existing 40-foot public right-of-way, within
which the street will be reconstructed. The westerly portion of Virginia Street is a private
street and the area over which the new Strathmore Avenue will be built is owned by
LADAA; therefore, the City of Rosemead will acquire the right-of-way to construct the
proposed street improvements on Virginia Street and Strathmore Avenue, (see Figure 2).
The proposed right-of-way acquisition will involve partial takes from a total of ten (10)
parcels along Virginia Street and new Strathmore Avenue, with 6 out of the 10 parcels
owned by the LADAA.
The proposed street improvements on Virginia Street and Strathmore Avenue are as
follows:
• Virginia Street: Construction of a 34-foot wide street; this will allow two lanes of
traffic and parking on one side (north).
• New Strathmore Avenue: Construction of a 36-foot wide street; this will allow two
lanes of traffic and parking on both sides of the street.
• Installation of new curb and gutter, driveway approaches, sidewalk (north side
only on Virginia Street; both sides on Strathmore Avenue), and handicapped
access curb ramps in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements.
• Installation of new street lights with marblelite (concrete) poles and underground
conduits. The new street lighting system will be owned, operated, and,
maintained by Southern California Edison (SCE).
• Construction of a storm drain line to collect storm water runoff from Virginia and
Strathmore Streets. The new storm drain line will be connected to the existing
storm drain system on Garvey Avenue. Upon completion of the storm drain line,
the system will be transferred to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District
for operation and maintenance.
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements
Environmental Initial Study
City of Rosemead
May 2003
In addition, the project will include the closure of Denton Avenue at Garvey Avenue once
construction of Virginia and Strathmore Streets is complete. The remaining portions of
Denton Avenue will be removed by LADAA.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement)
The City will obtain the necessary encroachment permit from the County of Los Angeles
to connect the new storm drain with the County mainline facility located under Valley
Boulevard. Required right-of-way will be provided and documented in an access
agreement between the City and the property owner. The project has been included and
documented in the City's current Pavement Management System.
11. References
The following are also referenced where appropriate in the Environmental Checklist
Form:
a. City of Rosemead, California, General Plan, Adopted 1987
b. South Central Coastal Information Center, Department of Archaeology, California
State University Fullerton, May 7, 2002, January 8, 2003.
C. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook, 1993.
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 7 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant' ipact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Agriculture Resources
❑ Air Quality
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Geology /Soils
❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
❑ Hydrology/ Water Quality
❑ Land Use / Planning
❑ Mineral Resources
❑ Noise
0 Population / Housing
❑ Public Services
❑ Recreation
❑ Transportation / Traffic
❑ Utilities / Service Systems
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
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.
❑ 1 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.
❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,. and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ 1 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 address 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 that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Printed Name
Date
For
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 8 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
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 factor 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 offsite as well as
onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then
the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less
than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
EIR is required. .
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe
the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be
cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the
following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
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.
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 9 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that
are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance.
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 10 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST:
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
AESTHETICS
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigaflon
Impact
Incorporation
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 .
X❑
buildings within a state scenic highway?
C)
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
❑
❑
❑
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d)
Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
I(a). No Impact. The project will reconstruct Virginia Street and provide new street
improvements for the northerly extension of Strathmore Avenue. The project is located
within an urban setting where the most significant visual changes will occur along a
major commercial corridor (Garvey Avenue). Although some temporary visual impacts
within this residential-commercial area due to construction activities will occur, this
project will not have substantial adverse impacts on a scenic vista, or seriously degrade
the visual character of the area.
I(b). No Impact. See Response I(a).
I(c). No Impact. See Response I(a).,
I(d). Less Than Significant Impact. Among the proposed street improvements along
Virginia Street and Strathmore Avenue, new streetlights will be installed to provide
nighttime visibility and security within the public right-of-way. To minimize the effects of
light and glare upon the residential homes, proper shielding, installation and placement
of the new streetlights would reduce any likelihood that light and glare impacts would
result from implementation of the project.
Virginia, St.'and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 11 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
II AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may ~fer 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 ro'ect:
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
❑
❑
❑
rM
Williamson Act contract?
C) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, co,-ld result in
❑
❑
❑
❑
conversion of Familand, to non-agricultural use?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
II(a). No Impact. The project locations are not used for agricultural purposes and do not
include prime, unique, or important farmland. These project areas are committed to
urban uses.
II(b). No Impact. There is no conflict with the Williamson Act since there are no agricultural
resources along the project right of way.
II(c). No Impact. See Response II(a).
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
III AIR QUALITY
Significant
Significant
With Mitigation
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Incorporation
Im act
p
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control district
may be relief 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?
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 which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
El
El
1:1
con
centrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
b
f
l
?
1:1
E]
x
1:1
num
er o
peop
e
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 12 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
III(a). Less Than Significant Impact. Although the project will result in changes to existing
traffic patterns, the overall impacts from the project will likely result in no change or
reduced vehicle trips as a result of an improved and more-efficient commercial operation
by the LADAA. Thus, no increase in travel or vehicle emissions will be associated with
the completed project. Any air quality impacts that would result from the project would
be temporary resulting from short term construction activity. The only air pollutant that
would be emitted from the project would be fugitive dust, which is typical of any
construction site. Consequently, the project does not exceed the thresholds of
significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook, 1993). Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the air quality plan and would have no corresponding impacts.
III(b). No Impact: The completed project would not result in an increase of any air pollutant
emissions. The only air pollutant emitted from the project during construction would be
fugitive dust. The emission of fugitive dust would be reduced to a minimum as required
by SCAQMD Rule 403. Therefore, the project would not violate any air quality standards
and would have no corresponding impacts.
III(c). No Impact. The only air pollutant that would be emitted from the proposed project
would be fugitive dust, which is typical of any construction. site. The release of fugitive
dust during construction would not contribute to cumulative air pollution with compliance
to SCAQMD Rule 403. Therefore, the project would have no impact in this regard.
III(d). Less than Significant Impact. As discussed, the only air pollutant that would be
emitted from the proposed project would be fugitive dust, which is typical of any
construction site. This emission would terminate after construction. Furthermore, the
release of fugitive dust would be reduced to a minimum as required by SCAQMD Rule
403. Therefore, the project would not release substantial pollutant concentrations, and
would have a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors.
III(e). Less than Significant Impact. Upon completion of the proposed street improvements,
such infrastructure improvements would not release any odors. However, development
of the project could release typical construction odors. These odors would cease at the
completion of construction. Furthermore_ any odors emitted during construction would
be local and. do not have the potential to affect a substantial number of people.
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact from odors.
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 13 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
IV
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
significant
with
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
'
Incorporation
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
l
l
l
i
l
li
i
l
i
h
~
❑
❑
oca
or reg
ans, po
ona
p
c
es, or regu
at
ons; or by t
e
_
. s._
-
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
❑
❑
❑
❑
x
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. 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,
❑
❑
❑
x
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
❑ -
❑
❑
❑
x
or ordinance?
0
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
❑ -
❑
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
IV(a). No Impact: The proposed project involves street and infrastructure improvements
within a developed, urban setting. The project would not affect any native vegetation, or
any habitat used by native wildlife. Therefore, the project would have no impact on
threatened, endangered, or otherwise special status species.
IV(b). No Impact: The project is limited to existing infrastructure and located within an existing
urban environment. Therefore, the project would have no impact to riparian habitat or an
established natural community.
IV(c). No Impact: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act protects wetlands, which it defines as
lands that are dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, contain hydric soils, and are
inundated with water for at least two weeks of the growing season. As discussed, the
project is located within a surrounding urban environment that does not support a natural
community. The existing infrastructure is impermeable and not capable`of supporting
vegetation. Therefore, the project would have no impact to wetlands.
IV(d). No Impact: The project would be limited to existing infrastructure and the surrounding
built environment, and the project does not contain any native vegetation, or any habitat
used by native wildlife. Therefore, the project would have no impact to wildlife travel
corridors, to the movement of any migratory or resident species, or to native wildlife
nursery sites.
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 14 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
IV(e). No Impact: The project would be limited to existing infrastructure and the existing built
environment, and would not impact any vegetation. Therefore, the project would have
no impact to any local policy or ordinance that protects biological resources.
IV(f). No Impact: The project would be limited to existing infrastructure and urban setting,
and the project does not contai l any native vegetation, or any habitat used by native
wildlife. Therefore, the project would have no impact to a habitat conservation plan,
natural community conservation plan, or otherwise established habitat conservation
plan.
Y - -
-Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
V
CULTURAL RESOURCES
significant
with
Significant.
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
Would the project
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
f
hi
t
l
d
fi
d i
S
ti
15064
5
i
❑
❑
❑
o
a
s
or
ca
resource as
e
ne
n
ec
on
.
.
b)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section
❑
❑
X
❑
15064.5?
C)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
it
i
l
i
l f
t
?
❑
❑
❑
resource or s
e or un
que geo
og
ca
ea
ure
d)
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
t
id
f f
t
l
i
?
❑
❑ -
X
❑
❑
orma
ceme
ou
s
e o
er
es
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
V(a). No Impact: The proposed project does not involve the demolition or alteration of any
historic or culturally significant structures. In addition, the street and infrastructure
improvements are not located within a historic district. Therefore, the project would have
no impact to historic resources.
V(b, d). Less than Significant Impact After Mitigation: The South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC) maintains a database of known and potential cultural
resources sites. The SCCIC does not anticipate any cultural resources to exist at any of
the alley and storm drain improvement locations. However, the SCCIC recommends a
halt-work condition be put in place in the event that cultural resources are encountered
during construction. Therefore, incorporation of Mitigation Measure V-1 would reduce
potential impacts to archaeological resources to less.than significant.
Mitigation Measure V-1: If cultural resources are encountered during construction,
development of the project shall halt and shall not resume until a professional
archaeologist assesses the findings..
V(c). Less than Significant Impact After Mitigation: The proposed project involves street
and infrastructure improvements within existing right-of-way and dedicated right-of-way.
The project does not involve excavation of previously unaltered surfaces, however
excavation activities could penetrate below human altered soils. Therefore, the project
has the potential to encounter paleontological resources or unique geological features.
Incorporation of Mitigation Measure V-2 would ensure potential impacts to these
resources be less than significant.
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 15 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Mitigation Measure V-2: If paleontological resources or unique geological features are
encountered during construction, development of the project shall halt and shall not
resume until a professional paleontologist assesses the findings.
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
VI
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
significant
with
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
Would the project:
a)
Expose people or structures to potential substantia!
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
11
El
El
1E
the most recent Alquist-Pdolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fa.9t? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
it) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
rvi
❑
iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
El
❑
0
❑
iv) Landslides?
MX
1:1
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 offsite landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d).
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1&1-B
of the uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
❑
❑
❑
- X
❑
risk to life or property?
,
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
h
t
il
f
bl
h
di
l
f
❑
❑
❑
w
ere sewers are no
ava
a
e
or t
e
sposa
o
wastewater?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
VI(a)i). No Impact: The City of Rosemead is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone,
and accordingly, no active faults are known or suspected in the City of Rosemead.
Therefore, the project would not be affected by a known earthquake fault and would
have no corresponding impact to people or structures. (City of Rosemead General Plan)
VI(a)ii). Less than Significant Impact: The project site is subject to seismic ground shaking.
The Raymond Hill fault is approximately two miles north of the City and the Whittier-
Elsinore fault is approximately five miles southeast of the City. Both faults are capable
of causing earthquakes. The proposed project, however, would not increase the amount
of people or structures exposed to or otherwise intensify the affects of potential
earthquakes. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact from
ground shaking. (City of Rosemead General Plan)
VI(a)iii). Less than Significant Impact: The City of Rosemead's General Plan Figure PS-1
identifies areas of the City that are susceptible to potential safety hazards, including
liquefaction. The project is not located within a liquefaction hazard area. In addition, the
project would not increase the amount of people or structures exposed to or otherwise
intensify the affects of liquefaction. Therefore the project would have a less than
significant impact from liquefaction. (City of Rosemead General Plan)
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 16 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
VI(a)iv). Less than Significant Impact: The project would not increase the amount of people
or structures exposed to or otherwise intensify the affects of landslides since the project
area topography is flat. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact
from landslides.
VI(b). Less than Significant Impact: The project involves the excavation of soil. However,
construction would be limited to existing right-of-way or, otherwise, developed areas and
would not result in the removal of topsoil. In addition, the project would not increase the
amount of impervious surfaces and would not contribute to water or wind velocity.
Therefore, the project would have a leG3'than-significant impact to soil erosion and
topsoil.
VI(c). Less than Significant Impact: As discussed, the City of Rosemead has the potential to
experience strong ground shaking. However, the project site is not within a natural
hazard area of the City as identified on Figure PS-1 of the City's General Plan. In
addition, the project site is not within an Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone since no
active faults are suspected within the City. Therefore, the project would have a less than
significant impact from geologic or soil instability. (City of Rosemead General Plan)
VI(d). Less than Significant Impact: The project requires only minimal excavation and would
not pierce any underlying bedrock. In addition, the project is not within the flood hazard
or liquefaction hazard zones of the City. The project would also meet all engineering
requirements of the City of Rosemead. Therefore, the project would have a less than
significant impact from expansive soils. (City of Rosemead General Plan)
VI(e). No Impact: The project involves .infrastructure improvements and would not be a
generator of wastewater. Consequently, the project would not require a septic tank.
Therefore, the project would have no impact from soils incapable of supporting septic
tanks.
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 17 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Less Than
VII
HAZARDS AND
Potenfialiy
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
HAZARDOLISMATERIALS
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
-
Incorporation
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
❑
❑
❑
❑
x
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
,
working in the project area?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
❑
❑
❑
working in the project area?
g)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
.
h)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
❑
❑
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
VII(a-b). Less than Significant Impact: The completed project would not be a generator of
hazardous materials. Furthermore, there are no known hazardous waste generators or
storage sites in the project area (EPA Enviromapper/Envirofacts, 5/28/02). Equipment
and vehicles used during construction of the project could contain gasoline, diesel fuel,
motor oil, or transmission fluids. However, equipment would be handled using Best
Management Practices, and would not generate significant hazards to the public.
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact from hazardous
materials.
VII(cj. Less than Significant Impact: As discussed, the only hazardous materials involved in
the project would be the fuel and lubrication fluids of construction equipment. The
release of these materials is not anticipated since Best Management Practices will be
used during construction. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant
impact from hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school.
VII(d). No Impact: As discussed, there are no known hazardous waste generators or storage
sites in the project area (EPA Enviromapper/Envirofacts, 5/28/02). Therefore, the
project is not located on a site that is included on a compiled list of hazards materials
sites and would have no associated impacts.
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 18 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
VII(e-f). No Impact: The closest airport to the City is the El Monte Airport, located 2.3 miles to
the northeast. The project site is not located within the runway clear zones for the El
Monte Airport (El Monte Airport Layout Plan, approved by the FAA 1-22-96). Therefore,
the project would have no impact from the hazards associated with proximity to airports.
VII(g). Less than Significant Impact: The project could temporarily disrupt circulation on the
involved streets. However, none of the involved streets are evacuation routes as
identified on Figure PS-2,of the City's General Plan. In addition, the completed project
would not be a generator of traffic and would not alter any traffic patterns. Therefore, the
project would have no impact to emergency response or evacuation plans
VII(h). No Impact: The project is located in and surrounded by urban land. Consequently, the
project is not within an area where wildfires occur. Therefore, there would be no impact
from wildfires.
Less Than
VIII
HYDROLOGY AND WATER
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
QUALITY
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
Would the project
a)
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
t
i
?
❑
❑
❑
requ
remen
s
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
❑
❑
❑
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would'not support existing land uses or planned
,
uses for which permits have been granted)?
C)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
❑ .
result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite?
-
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 substantial) increase the
❑
❑
❑
❑
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on or offsite?, .
e)
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
-
the capacity of existing or planned stomr water drainage
❑ -
❑
❑
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff.
f)
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
hi
h
ld i
d
di
t fl
d fl
❑
❑
❑
w
c
wou
mpe
e or re
rec
oo
ows.
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
1:1
E]
❑
❑
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑
❑
❑
0
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 19 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
VIII(a). Less Than Significant Impact: The use of the completed project would not generate
any.additional water pollutants. However, during construction, sedimentation from the
project site could be greater than during normal conditions. This sedimentation would
be reduced to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the requirements of
the National Pollution, Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Therefore, the project
would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and
would have no associated impacts.
VIII(b). No Impact: As discussed, the project involves street and infrastructure improvements.
Despite new street improvements, this action would not interfere with the supply of
groundwater recharge nor deplete its groundwater supply as the creation of impervious
surfaces are expected to be minimal since the current site is used as a parking lot. As
a result, the project will not increase water flows or affect the boundaries of any
watersheds or require additional demand on existing groundwater supplies. Therefore,
the project would have no impact on groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge.
VIII(c-d). Less than Significant Impact: The proposed street improvements and installation of
storm drain facilities will likely alter existing surface water flows, however, these
improvements will not affect the alteration of any watersheds as the runoff will be
discharged to existing storm drain tines. Although the project would likely increase the
amount of runoff discharged from the site as a result of improved drainage flow from
associated street improvements, any additional runoff is not considered significant as
new storm drain facilities . will be installed in conjunction with' the new street
improvements and considered to be more than adequate to service the new runoff
during storm events. Any increased runoff attributed to the creation of additional
impervious surfaces is expected to be minimal as the project will be constructed in
existing developed areas which are currently used as a parking lot for the auto auction
facility. Therefore, despite the possible alteration of existing water flows and increased
runoff resulting from mostly improved drainage, the project (with the installation of
additional storm drain facilities) will have a less than significant impact on drainage or
drainage patterns..
VIII(e). Less than Significant Impact: The proposed street improvements would likely result in
increased runoff. New storm drain facilities will, however, be provided in conjunction
with the street improvements and will be more than adequate to service any future
demand. Any resulting increase in the creation of impervious surfaces is considered
minimal as the current site is presently used as a parking lot. During construction,
sedimentation from the project site could be greater than during normal circumstances.
Thus, the project has the potential to contribute pollutant discharge in its runoff.
However, sedimentation would be reduced to the maximum extent practicable in
accordance with the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). Therefore, as a result'of constructing new storm drain facilities and
the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutant
discharges, the project would have a less than significant impact to storm water runoff or
quality.
VIII(f). No Impact: The project does not involve the generation or use of any water pollutants
other than sediment transport and the fuel and lubrication fluids of construction
equipment. Therefore, the project would not otherwise degrade water quality and would
have no associated impacts.
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 20 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
VIII(g). No Impact: As discussed, the project involves street and infrastructure improvements
and does not involve the development of flood-sensitive uses. Furthermore, this project
is located outside the 100-year and 500-year floodplains (FEMA FIRM map Community
No. 060153A, issued April 15, 1979). Therefore, the project would not place housing or
otherwise flood-sensitive uses within a 100-year floodplain.
VIII(h). No Impact: The proposed project improvements are not capable of altering flood flows.
In addition, the project site is not within the 100-year or 500-year floodplains (FEMA
FIRM map Community No. 060153A, issued 4-15-79). Therefore, the project would
have no impact from impeding or redirecting flood flows.
VIII(i). No Impact: The Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan identifies the flood
hazards in the City. Since the City is not within 100-year or 500-year floodplains as
identified by FEMA, the only flood hazard in the City is the floodwater stored behind the
Whittier Narrows. The release of water from Whittier Narrows could cause flooding in
the southeastern portion of the City. The project site is not within this potential flood
area. In addition, the project does not involve the development of flood-sensitive uses.
Therefore, the project would have no impact from potential flooding.of levees or dams.
(City of Rosemead General Plan)
VIIIQ). No Impact: The City is approximately 23 miles from the Pacific Ocean. In addition, the
project site is not within the potential flood area of Whittier Narrows, and not within a
potential liquefaction area (City of Rosemead General Plan, Figure PS-1). Therefore,
the project would have no impact from potential tsunami, seiche, or muciflow.
Less Than
'
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
IX
LAND USE AND PLANNING
significant
with
significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
Would the project:
a)
Physically divide an established community?
❑
❑
❑
b)
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
.
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
❑
❑
❑
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
.
environmental effect?
C)
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
t
l
it
l
?
ti
❑
❑
❑
❑
X
ura
na
commun
y conserva
on p
an
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
IX(a). Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed, the project involves street improvements
on Virginia Street and the extension of Strathmore Avenue through the current LADAA
facility to consolidate the auto auction operations and minimize the disruptive traffic
impacts upon the adjacent residential homes along Virginia Street. Upon completion of
the street improvements, Denton -Avenue will be relinquished to the. LADAA for its
operations and facility improvements. As this action would alter existing traffic patterns,
the project would improve traffic efficiency and safety within the vicinity of the proposed
street improvements. Although the project will alter circulation patterns, the changes
would not detrimentally affect existing residential uses at the expense of improving
access and. circulation for adjacent commercial businesses. Therefore, the project
would have less than a significant impact to established communities. .
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 21 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
IX(b). Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed street improvements will require
dedication of right-of-way to provide the necessary infrastructure improvements.
Although construction of these improvements may cause some temporary disruptions to
local traffic and adjacent residents and businesses, it is not expected that these
disruptions will result in closure to traffic or deny access to the adjacent residents and
businesses. Only temporary inconveniences related to construction activity and
alteration of pedestrian and circulation patterns may result. Otherwise, the project would
not conflict with land use plans, policies, or the regulations of any agencies and would
have no long-term associated impacts.
IX(c). No Impact: As discussed, the project would be limited to infrastructure improvements ,
and would not impact any vegetation. Therefore, the project would have no impact to
habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans.
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
X MINERAL RESOURCES
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future 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
❑
❑
❑
❑
x
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
.
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
X(a-b). No Impact: The City is underlain by Holocene and Pleistocene aged alluvium with an
approximate thickness of 5,000 to 6,000 feet. The alluvium is underlain by sedimentary
rock. Although the project may require excavation to install the storm drain
improvements, the project is located within a urban setting where no known mineral
resources are known to exist nor are documented within the General Plan. Therefore,
the project would not affect mineral resources and would have no associated impacts.
(City of Rosemead General Plan, Health and Safety, Page VI-1)
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
XI
NOISE
Significant
with
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
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
b
i
d b
i
l
l
?
❑
❑
❑ .
ground bome vi
rat
on or groun
ome no
se
eve
s
C)
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
❑
❑
❑x
❑
the project?
d)
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
El
❑
without the project?
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 22 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study - .May2003
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
XI NOISE
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
e) For a project looted 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
❑
1:1
❑
0
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
q For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
Q
project area to excessive noise levels?
,
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XI(a, d). Less Than Significant Impact: Because of the new street alignment of Strathmore
Avenue north of Garvey -Avei:je, the project may generate additional noise in the
vicinity. However, with the consolidation of the LADAA facility, traffic noise impacts upon
residences will be reduced as current access is provided along Virginia Street which
serves predominantly residential uses. The new traffic along the Strathmore Avenue
would more directly impact adjacent commercial businesses which are not considered to
be noise-sensitive receptors and are more likely to be impacted from the noise along
Garvey Avenue than any of the associated traffic on Strathmore Avenue. However,
construction of the project could produce noise from equipment and operations in conflict
with the noise standards identified on Figure N-1 and Table N-1 of the City's General
Plan. Construction noise would be reduced in accordance with the City's noise
ordinances and would cease with the completion of construction. Therefore, the project
would have a less than significant noise impact
XI(b). Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the project could produce vibrations
above normal levels in the areas surrounding the project site. These vibrations would be
temporary and would cease with the completion of construction. Therefore, the project
would have a. less than significant impact from vibrations.
XI(c). Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed, the project involves new street
improvements including the extension of Strathmore Avenue to Virginia Street. This new
alignment will introduce new sources of roadway noise. However, with the consolidated
operations of the LADAA facility and the associated reduced impacts upon adjacent
residences, the proposed street improvements would have negligible noise impacts
upon surrounding residences.. Any potential increase in noise resulting from the project
would be attributed principally to adjacent commercial uses and to traffic-related noise
on nearby Garvey Avenue. Therefore, the project itself would have a less than
significant impact upon ambient noise levels.
XI(e-f). No Impact: The nearest airport (public or private) is the El Monte Airport, which is 2.3
miles northeast of the project site. Furthermore, the project does not involve the
development of sensitive noise receptors. Therefore, the project would have no impacts
from airport generated noise.
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 23 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
XII
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
Would the project:
a)
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
❑
❑
❑
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b)
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing .
)
a ❑
❑
elsewhere?
C)
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
❑
❑
❑
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XII(a). Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed, the project involves infrastructure
improvements. This action would not directly increase the population or housing in the
City. The proposed infrastructure improvements are intended to improve access, correct
circulation problems, and replace deteriorating roadways without increasing capacity.
Since the street improvements will occur in a built-out urban environment, it is expected
that the project will not result in an increase of population growth.
XII(b-c). No Impact: As discussed, the project involves various infrastructure improvements.
Despite the need to obtain right-of-way for street dedication purposes on several
residential and commercial properties to construct the improvements, it is not expected
that the project will impact those businesses nor result in the loss of any residential units.
Therefore, the project would not displace any residents and would have no associated
impact.
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
XIII PUBLIC SERVICES
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
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?
a) Fire protection?
❑
❑
EK
❑
s
b) Police protection?
❑
❑
❑x
❑
C) Schools?
❑
El
❑
d) Parks?
❑
❑
❑
❑X
e) Other public facilities?
❑
❑
1
❑
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 24 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XIII(a). Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the
development of residences and would not significantly induce growth. Consequently,
the amount of people served by local fire protection services would not increase as a
result of the project. However, the project could temporarily disrupt circulation on the
involved streets. None of the involved streets are evacuation routes as identified on
Figure PS-2 of the City's General Plan. In addition, the completed project would not be
a generator of traffic. Coordination with local fire authorities to determine adequate fire
access and detours during construction is expected. Therefore, impacts to fire
protection would be less than Significant.
XIII(b): Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the
development of residences and would not significantly induce growth. Consequently,
the amount of people served bvalocal police protection services would not increase as a
result of the project. However, the project could temporarily disrupt circulation on the
involved streets. None of the involved streets are evacuation routes as identified on
Figure PS-2 of the City's General Plan. In addition, the completed project would not be
a generator of traffic. Coordination with local police authorities to determine detours
during construction is expected. Therefore, impacts to police protection would be less
than significant. ,
XIII(c). No Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the development of residences
and would not significantly induce growth. Consequently, the amount of people served
by local school system would not increase as a result of the project. Therefore, the
project would have no impact to schools.
XIII(d). No Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the development of residences
and would not significantly induce growth. Consequently, the use of public parks would
not increase as a result of the project. In addition, the project involves the on-site
replacement of streetlights and would not directly impact any parks. However, access to
the community park along Dorothy Avenue could be disrupted during construction. This
disruption would be temporary and would cease when construction is completed.
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact to parks.
XIII(e). Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the
development of residences and would not significantly induce growth. Consequently,
the use of or need for public facilities would not increase as a result of the project. In
addition, the project involves new street improvements and various storm drain
improvements that would improve access and drainage along the noted right-of-way.
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact to public facilities.
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
XI'V RECREATION
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
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?
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 25 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XIV(a-b). No Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the development of residences
and would not significantly induce growth. Consequently, the use of public parks would
not increase as a result of the project. In addition, the project involves infrastructure
improvements and would not directly impact any parks. Therefore, the project would not
physically deteriorate any existing parks and would not cause the need for additional
parks.
Less Than
.'Potentiaiiy-
-Significant
Less Than
XV
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
significant
with
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
Would the project:
a)
Cause an increase in traffic which is si,ostantial in
relation the existing traffic load and capacity of the
streets stem (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
❑
❑
F-1
❑
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
-
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b)
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 'a level of
service standard established b the county congestion estion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
C)
Result in a change in air traffic patte 9s, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a thane 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
❑
❑
❑
❑
X
incompatible uses (e.g., fans equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
O
❑X
❑
0
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑
❑
❑
g)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments
XV(a, b, d). No Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the development of
residences and would not significantly induce growth. In addition, the project does not
involve the development of any traffic generators. Consequently, the use of
transportation facilities would not increase as a result of the project; and the project
would not affect levels of service, and would not increase road hazards. Therefore, the
project would have no traffic volume or associated impacts.
XV(c). No Impact: As discussed, the project does not involve the development of residences,
businesses, or industry and would not significantly induce growth or the need for air
travel. In addition, the nearest airport is El Monte Airport, which is 2.3 miles northeast.
The project would not affect the flight patterns of airplanes using this or any other airport.
Therefore, the project would have no impact to air travel.
XV(e). Less Than Significant Impact:
development of residences, busine
growth or the need for emergency
disrupt access and circulation on
temporarily affected by construction
As discussed, the project does not involve the
sses, or industry-and would not significantly induce
services. However, the project could temporarily
the involved city streets. Any of the businesses
will be informed of the proposed work to minimize
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 26 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study . May 2003
any inconveniences which may result from the project. Work along city streets will
include appropriate traffic controls to divert traffic and maintain traffic flow through the
work area during construction. In addition, construction work within the public right-of-
way will be limited to off-peak traffic demand periods to minimize impacts to the traveling
public and adjacent businesses. Coordination with local emergency service providers to
determine detours during construction will be provided. Therefore, impacts to
emergency access would be less than significant.
XV(f). Less Than Significant Impact: The only parking the project would require is during
construction. Construction equipment and vehicles would require temporary parking.
However, this need for parking would be during regular workday and non-peak hours,
when on-street parking demand will be less than evening or peak travel periods.. There
may be a limited short-term loss of on-street parking during construction, however, the
amount of parking temporarily displaced will not be sufficient to result in an inadequate
parking supply. Therefore, the„project would have a less than significant impact on
parking.
XV(g). Less Than Significant Impact: The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)
provides bus service to the City. The roadway involved in the project that is used by the
MTA is Garvey Avenue. Since the project could temporarily disrupt circulation on
Garvey Avenue, public transit could be affected. However, any impacts to public transit
would be temporary and can be minimized by coordinating with MTA officials to relocate
affected stop locations, if necessary, during construction. Therefore, the project would
have a less than significant impact, to alternative transportation.
Less Than
XVI
UTILITIES AND SERVICE
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
SYSTEMS
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
Would the pro%ech
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
bl
Q
lit
t
l B
li
R
i
l W
C
d?
❑
F-1
0
ater
on
oar
app
ca
e
eg
ona
ua
y
ro
b)
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
❑
❑
❑
0
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 wafter supplies available to serve the
roject from existing entitlements and resources, or are
project
1:1
❑
❑
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e)
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 providers existing
commitments?
f)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
1:1
❑
needs?
g)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
id
❑
❑
regulations related to sol
waste?
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements. 27 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XVI(a). No Impact: As discussed, the project involves various infrastructure improvements and
would not impact wastewater treatment facilities. This action would not increase the
generation of wastewater. Therefore, the project would not exceed wastewater
treatment requirement of the Los Angeles Region Water Quality Control Board and
would have no associated impacts.
XVI(b, d, e). No Impact: As discussed, the project would not increase the need for water or the
generation of wastewater. Therefore uici project would not require or result in the
alteration of water or wastewater treatment facilities.
XVI(c). No Impact: As discussed, the project involves proposed street improvements including
the installation of related storm drain improvements. Construction of the proposed street
and storm drain facilities are located in developed urban areas where no sensitive
biological resources or any adverse environmental impacts would result. Despite the
installation of new storm drain improvements to improve drainage flow problems from
new or existing street locations„the project will not result in an increase in impervious
surfaces that would result in an increase in urban runoff discharged into the storm
drains. Therefore, the project would not cause any significant impacts upon the
environments resulting from the proposed storm drain improvements.
XVI(f). Less Than Significant Impact: The project involves proposed street improvements
and other related infrastructure improvements. The completed project will generate
excess concrete and asphalt material during the demolition of the existing parking lot for
the new extension of Strathmore Avenue prior to construction of the new street
improvements. Thus, development of the project could produce inert fill.Due to the size
of the project and the minimal excavation required, however, adequate-facilities exist to
accept the solid waste generated during construction. Therefore, there would be a less
than significant impact to solid waste disposal.
XVI(g). No Impact: Disposal of waste materials generated during construction will comply with
all local, state, and federal requirements for integrated waste management .(e.g.,
recycling, green waste) and solid waste disposal.
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 28 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003
Less Than
XVII
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
SIGNIFICANCE
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
,
Incorporation
Does the project:
'
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
7
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 v_ffects 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 betngs,
QX
either directly or indirectly'?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
-XVII(a). No Impact: The project involves proposed street improvements and related
infrastructure improvements along Virginia Street and the extension of Strathmore
Avenue within an existing commercial and residential area. Construction of the
proposed street improvements will require right-of-way dedication from adjacent
properties to install the planned improvements. However, none of the right-of-way
dedications will displace any business or residence as a result of the proposed street
improvements. In addition, the project site is within a completely developed area that
does not support substantial populations of native vegetation or wildlife and does not
support any special status species. Therefore, the project would have no impact on
wildlife habitats.
XVII(b). Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the proposed street improvements
would be limited to existing developed areas where an increase in paving area will be
minimal. Although the project would increase runoff as a result, of new street
improvements, the additional runoff is not considered significant as new storm drain
facilities proposed as part of the street improvements will be more than adequate to
service any additional runoff during storm events. The project would benefit adjacent
uses by reducing drainage flows onto adjacent properties while enhancing the useful life
of the street by minimizing water damage from improper drainage along the project
streets. Individually, the project may contribute to a minimal increase in storm water
runoff within the vicinity of the project. However, the project is also located within a
larger urban setting where current build-out conditions would preclude further increases
in runoff from future development. Although the street improvements may potentially
increase storm water runoff within the project area, any increase in runoff is expected to
be minimal since the project will not substantially increase impervious surfaces while
enhancing traffic access and circulation along the project streets. Therefore, the project
would have less than significant cumulative impacts.
XVII(c). No Impact:. As discussed in Sections VI, VII, and VIII, the project would have no
impact to the environment that would cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings.
Virginia St. and Strathmore Ave. Improvements 29 City of Rosemead
Environmental Initial Study May 2003