PC - Item 3B - Exhibit F
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Hampton Inn and Suites
Conditional Use Permit 16-01
Design Review 16-02
Zone Change 16-01
Lead Agency:
City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
(626)-569-2142
Project Proponent:
Ivar Eagle, LLC
1264 San Gabriel Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
(626) 823-3235
Environmental Consultant:
Phil Martin & Associates
4860 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 203
Irvine, California 92620
(714) 454-1800
February 2, 2017
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites – Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page i
TABLE of CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Location ......................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Description ......................................................................................... 1
1.4 Intended Use of This Document ..................................................................... 5
1.5 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 5
1.6 Cumulative Projects ..................................................................................... 13
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ............................................................................ 15
3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ............................................. 18
3.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Agricultural Resources ................................................................................. 24
3.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................... 25
3.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................... 33
3.5 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... 35
3.6 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................ 40
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................... 42
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality........................................................................ 44
3.9 Land Use...................................................................................................... 48
3.10 Mineral Resources ....................................................................................... 53
3.11 Noise ............................................................................................................ 54
3.12 Population and Housing ............................................................................... 63
3.13 Public Services ............................................................................................ 64
3.14 Recreation .................................................................................................... 65
3.15 Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................... 65
3.16 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................... 78
3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................................................. 80
4.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 82
Appendices
Appendix A – Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix B – Geotechnical Report
Appendix C – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix D – Hydrology/LID Report
Appendix E – Noise Report
Appendix F – Traffic Report
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites – Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page ii
LIST of FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Regional Location Map .............................................................................................. 2
2. Local Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................... 3
3. Aerial Photo ............................................................................................................... 4
4. Site Plan .................................................................................................................... 6
5. Building Elevations .................................................................................................... 7
6. Building Elevations .................................................................................................... 8
7. Landscape Plan ......................................................................................................... 9
8. On-Site Photographs ............................................................................................... 10
9. Off-Site Land Uses .................................................................................................. 11
10. Photo Orientation Map ............................................................................................. 12
11. Cumulative Projects – Aerial Photo .......................................................................... 14
12. Photometric Study ................................................................................................... 21
13. Land Use Plan ......................................................................................................... 50
14. Zoning Map.............................................................................................................. 51
15. Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................ 56
16. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels ....................................... 62
17. Studied Intersections ............................................................................................... 67
18. Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 69
19. Year 2016 with Project 24-Hour Traffic Volumes ..................................................... 72
20. Year 2018 with Project 24-Hour Traffic Volumes ..................................................... 75
LIST of TABLES
Table Page
1. South Coast Air Basin Emission Forecasts (Emissions (tons/day) ........................... 25
2. Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2009-2013) .......................................................... 26
3. Daily Emission Thresholds ....................................................................................... 27
4. Construction Activity Equipment Fleet ...................................................................... 28
5. Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) ............... 28
6. Daily Operational Impacts ........................................................................................ 29
7. Maximum Daily Disturbed Acreage Per Equipment Type ......................................... 30
8. LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day) ................................................................ 30
9. Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2(e)) .......................................................... 32
10. Operational Emissions ............................................................................................. 32
11. Required Hotel Amenities ........................................................................................ 49
12. Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits .......................................................................... 55
13. Measured Noise Levels (dBA) ................................................................................. 56
14. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from Centerline)...................... 57
15. Project-Related Noise Impact (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from Centerline) .................... 58
16. Estimated Vibration Levels from Project Construction Activities ............................... 61
17. Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................ 66
18. Existing 2016 – Study Area Intersection Levels of Service without Project .............. 70
19. Baseline 2018 – Study Area Intersection Levels of Service without Project ............. 70
20. Existing 2016 – Study Area Intersection Levels of Service with Project ................... 71
21. Baseline 2018 – Study Area Intersections Levels of Service with Project ................ 74
22. Estimate Project Water Consumption ...................................................................... 79
23. Estimated Project Wastewater Generation .............................................................. 79
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites – Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
The City of Rosemead (“Lead Agency”) has prepared this Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the purpose of identifying and evaluating the potential impacts that could occur with proposed
Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02 and Zone Change 16-01 for the
construction of a four-story 123 room Hampton Inn and Suites hotel project. The project is
located on approximately 1.83 acres and includes 123 guest rooms and 125 parking spaces,
including five handicap spaces.
It is the intent of this environmental document to identify the potential environmental impacts
that can be expected to occur with the development of the proposed project, including the
demolition of the existing asphalt paved parking lot and other site improvements, and provide
feasible mitigation measures, when required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Approval of the site plan is required
by the City.
1.2 LOCATION
The project site totals approximately 79,813 square feet (1.83 acres) and is located in the City
of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California as shown in Figure 1, Regional Map. The
project site consists of one parcel (APN 5390-018-037) and is located at the southeast corner
of the intersection of Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way as shown in Figure 2 – Local Vicinity
Map. An aerial photograph of the site is shown in Figure 3 – Aerial Photo. The project site is
currently designated by the Rosemead General Plan as Commercial and the zoning is C-3
(Medium Commercial), D (Design Overlay) and P-D (Planned Development). The project is
requesting a zone change to remove the P-D zoning for the site.
The General Plan land use designations adjacent to the site include Commercial to the west,
and east, High Density Residential (0-30 du/ac) to the north, and Interstate 10 to the south.
The adjacent zoning includes C-3 (Medium Commercial), D (Design Overlay) and P-D
(Planned Development) to the west, P-D to the east, R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential) to the
north and Interstate 10 to the south.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed hotel is located in the northwest corner of the site. The site is developed as an
asphalt paved surface parking lot and provides parking for the adjacent UFC Gym. Although
the Hampton Inn site is a legally distinct parcel from the adjacent UFC Gym, in the past the
UFC parcel and the proposed Hampton Inn parcel have been treated as a unitary site.
The project will require the demolition of the existing surface parking lot and other site
improvements to allow the construction of the proposed five–story hotel with 123 guest rooms.
The hotel includes a business center with a computer, fax machine and photocopy machine,
fitness center, meeting rooms, swimming pool and snack shop. Complimentary breakfast will
be provided for hotel guests. There will be seven rooms on the first floor, along with an office,
a hotel lobby, breakfast area and snack shop with twenty-nine hotel rooms on each of the
floors 2-5. The project proposes a total of 125 parking spaces including 95 standard spaces,
20 compact spaces, 5 RV spaces, 5 handicap spaces and 20 bicycle spaces.
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Phil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Figure 1
Regional Map
N
*
Site Location
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Google Maps, 2016
Figure 2
Local Vicinity Map
Project
Location
N
UFC
Gym
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Google Maps, 2016
Figure 3
Aerial Photo
Project
Location
N
UFC
GymIvar Ave.Glendon Way
I-10 San Bernardino Fwy.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 5
New landscaping will be provided along the north, west and southern project boundaries to
buffer the project from the adjacent uses. A 3-foot tall block wall and landscaping will be
constructed along the east project boundary to separate and buffer the project from the UFC
Gym adjacent to and east of the site.
The proposed hotel is 67’ 9” in height. There are three points for site access. Two, two-way
driveways are provided on Ivar Avenue along the west project boundary. A single driveway
is provided from Glendon Way at the north project boundary. Indirect site access is also
provided via a joint drive aisle with the UFC Gym site that extends along the north side of the
gym and connects with Ivar Avenue at the west project boundary. A second driveway for site
access and project surface parking is proposed from Ivar Avenue near the southern project
boundary. This southern driveway and associated drive aisle will also allow vehicular access
to parking south of the UFC Gym adjacent to the site. A proposed reciprocal access
agreement will allow legal access between the project site and the adjacent UFC Gym.
The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 4. Building elevations of the proposed building are
shown in Figures 5 and 6. A conceptual landscape plan showing the types of landscape
materials proposed for the site is shown in Figure 7.
1.4 INTENDED USE OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document is intended to be used by the City of Rosemead as the Lead Agency to
evaluate the project’s environmental impacts and develop appropriate mitigation measures to
reduce impacts, if any, to less than a significant level, according to the regulations set forth in
the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines (Public Resources Code §21000 –
21177, and California Code of Regulations §1500 – 15387).
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Rosemead is a suburb within the Greater Los Angeles area located 10 miles east
of the City of Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by the City of Temple City, the west by
the City of San Gabriel and the County of Los Angeles, the south by the City of Montebello,
and the City of El Monte and South El Monte is to the east. The City of Rosemead is 5.5
square miles in size with an estimated 2016 population of 55,2311 people.
The project is located in an urbanized area that is entirely developed. Interstate 10 is adjacent
to and south of the site, a self-storage facility and a hotel, that is under construction to the
west and further west are single-family detached homes, multi-family residential to the north
and the UFC Gym and parking lot to the east. Further east are the Rosemead Boulevard on-
off ramps to Interstate 10. Photographs of the project site and the surrounding land uses are
shown in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. Figure 10 is a photo orientation aerial showing the
locations of the photos in Figures 8 and 9. The land uses surrounding the site include:
North
General Plan – High Density Residential (0-30 du/ac)
Zoning – R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential)
Land Use – Multi-Family Residential
1 http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Source: Simon Lee & Assoc., ArchitectsNFigure 4Site Plan
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 5North and South Building ElevationsSource: Simon Lee & Assoc.., Architects
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 6East and West Building ElevationsSource: Simon Lee & Assoc.., Architects
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 7Landscape PlanSource: Terry Lee Design GroupN
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.1. Looking south across the site from Glendon Way 2. Looking at the southern area of the site from Ivar Avenue3. Looking at the northern area of the site from the middle of the site 4. Looking at the location of the proposed hotel from the east project boundary.Figure 8 On-Site PhotosSource: Phil Martin & Assoc..
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.5. Looking the hotel adjacent to and west of the site, west of Ivar Ave. 6. Looking from the site at the residences north of the site7. Looking at the parking lot and gym east of the site 8. Looking across the southern portion of the site at freeway south of siteFigure 9 O-Site Land UsesSource: Phil Martin & Assoc..
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Phil Martin & Assoc. / Google Maps 2016
Figure 10
Photo Orientation Map
N
UFC
GymIvar Ave.Glendon Way
I-10 San Bernardino Fwy.
6
3 4
2
8
5
1
7
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 13
South
General Plan – N.A. (Interstate 10)
Zoning – N.A. (Interstate 10)
Land Use – Interstate 10
East
General Plan - Commercial
Zoning - P-D (Planned Development)
Land Use – UFC Gym and parking lot
West
General Plan - Commercial
Zoning - C-3 (Medium Commercial with Design Overlay)
Land Use – Commercial
1.6 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
The City of Rosemead identified two projects that, along with the proposed project, could have
cumulative impacts. The two projects include:
A. 9400 Valley Boulevard – Develop a 5,645 square foot commercial project.
B. 9048 Garvey Avenue – develop 48 residential units and 6,500 square feet of retail
space.
An aerial photograph showing the location of the two cumulative projects is provided in Figure
11. There are no additional cumulative projects that along with the proposed project could
have potential cumulative impacts.
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 11Cumulative Project Location AerialSource: Phil Martin & Assoc.N
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 15
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Environmental Factors That Could Result in a Potentially Significant Impact
The environmental factors listed below are not checked because the proposed project would not
result in a “potentially significant impact” as indicated by the preceding checklist and supported by
substantial evidence provided in this document.
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/Services Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment,
and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an Environmental Impact Report is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or
“potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signed Date
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 16
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) CEQA requires a brief explanation for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards
(e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-
specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, and
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.
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.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 17
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.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 18
3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.1 Aesthetics
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 building 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?
3.1 AESTHETICS
a) No Impact. The project site and the surrounding properties are not designated a scenic
vista by the City of Rosemead General Plan. The most predominant scenic vista open to the
Rosemead community is the San Gabriel Valley mountain range that is located approximately
8 miles north of the city.
The proposed hotel will not significantly block or interrupt any existing views south across the
site of the residents north of the project. There are no city designated or recognized aesthetic
resources south of the site that would be blocked or interrupted by the project of the residents
north of the site. There are no existing residents adjacent to and south, west, or east of the
site that will have views of the San Gabriel Mountains interrupted or blocked by the project.
The project will not have any significant scenic vista impacts because there are no City
adopted scenic vistas that are visible from the area adjacent to or surrounding the site that
would be significantly impacted by the project.
b) No Impact. The project site is not located adjacent to or near a state-designated, or eligible
scenic highway.2 The project will not impact any existing scenic resources, historic buildings,
etc., within a state scenic highway.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently an asphalt parking lot that
provides parking for employees and patrons of the UFC Gym adjacent to and east of the site.
The project site, which includes an asphalt parking lot, light poles and landscaping, will be
demolished for the construction of the project.
There are three existing trees in the parking lot that will be removed. None of the trees that
will be removed are oak trees. The project proposes to plant 57 trees within the landscape
perimeter and throughout the site, including the proposed surface parking lot. Most of the
2 State of California Officially Designated State Scenic Highways,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenichighways/
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 19
existing landscaping along the west and north project boundary will be replaced with new
landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs and groundcover. However a few existing mature
trees will be preserved and incorporated into the project landscaping. Two oak trees along
the west project boundary, adjacent to Ivar Avenue, will be preserved and incorporated into
the project landscaping. The landscaping that is proposed along the east project boundary
includes trees, shrubs and groundcover to buffer the hotel from the existing UFC Gym and
surface parking lot adjacent to and east of the project. Landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs
and groundcover is proposed along the southern project boundary to buffer the project from
the freeway traffic to the south. In addition, the project proposes landscaping along the east
and south perimeter of the hotel itself. Landscaping is proposed throughout the surface
parking lot south of the hotel. Compared to the existing landscaping, the landscaping that is
proposed by the project will improve the aesthetics of the site for motorists and pedestrians
on the roadways adjacent to the site and improve the aesthetics of the site for the residents
in the project vicinity, especially the residents north of the project that have direct views of the
site.
Building elevations of the proposed hotel were shown previously in Figures 5 and 6. As
shown, four levels of hotel rooms will be constructed on top of the ground floor. The first, or
ground floor, is 15’ in height, each floor of hotel rooms is 10’ in height and the parapet is 12’
3” in height for a total hotel height of 67’ 9”.
The project will change the existing aesthetics of the site from a paved parking lot to a five-
story hotel, asphalt surface parking lot and new landscaping. The hotel will be visible to area
residents and businesses compared to the existing paved parking lot. As stated previously,
the hotel is five stories in height compared to the existing surface parking lot. Because of its
height, the project will also be visible to existing residents in the area further from the site.
While the project will be more visible compared to the existing parking lot, there are existing
two and three story buildings in the immediate project vicinity. There is a three-story hotel
under construction adjacent to and west of the project along the west side of Ivar Avenue and
an existing three-story hotel approximately 250 feet northeast of the site. In addition, there
are two-story multi-family residential developments west and north of the site, including
elevated two-story townhomes directly north of the site. Therefore, the proposed five story
hotel will not be unique and completely out of character with other multi-story buildings and is
not anticipated to significantly degrade the existing visual characteristics of the site, or the
area surrounding the site. The building architecture includes design and relief features that
will positive aesthetic benefits to the immediate community. Although the proposed building
is 67’ 9” feet in height compared to other buildings in the area that are up to approximately 30
feet in height, the C-3 Medium Commercial zone for the site allows structures up to 75 in
height. Therefore, the proposed hotel is 7’ 3” shorter than the maximum height allowed for
the site by the zoning.
The project will change the privacy of the residents north of the project by constructing a five-
story hotel that will allow views of the residential units to the north from the north and some
east facing hotel rooms. The project will allow hotel guests to have views of the areas
surrounding the site, including views of the residential units north of the site by some hotel
guests. While hotel guests in the upper levels will have elevated and direct views of the
residential units north of the site, there are no backyards or private open spaces associated
with any residential units adjacent to the site that will be in direct view by hotel guests. The
closest private open space in direct view of the hotel guests in the upper floors of the hotel
are two residential units approximately 360 feet north of the site, along the south side of
Marshall Street. A few residential units approximately 300 feet west of the site will also be in
direct view of hotel guests with west facing units. However, the three-story hotel that is under
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 20
construction west of Ivar Avenue will restrict views of the residents west of the site to the upper
two floors of the proposed hotel. Thus, not all of the rooms on the west side of the hotel will
have views of the residents to the west, only the guests in the rooms in the top two floors.
While some hotel guests will have views of existing residential units west and north of the site,
the same existing residents west and north of the site will have direct views of the rooms and
guests in the upper levels of the hotel. Due to the height of the hotel west of the project that
is under construction, residents west of the project and west of the hotel under construction
will have direct views of the upper two floors of the proposed hotel at the most due to their
diagonal line of sight. The hotel that is currently under construction will block the views of the
residents directly west of the proposed hotel except for the top two floors.
Street trees are proposed along both sides of the project adjacent to Ivar Avenue and Glendon
Way. All street streets must be installed and maintained to comply with RMC Chapter 12.48.
The project is located in an area of Rosemead that is designated with a Design Overlay and
required to comply and be consistent with Rosemead Municipal Code 17.28.020. As required
by RMC 17.28.020 B.3., the project must meet and be consistent with existing city design
criteria in terms of good design, compatibility with existing surrounding properties, minimize
interference with the privacy and views of occupants of surrounding structures, long, plain,
building walls should be avoided by incorporating building articulation (e.g., arcades, decks,
material variation, porches, public art, roofline variation, varied setbacks, and windows) and
other similar methods, roof-mounted equipment shall be fully screened, the design of the
structures, driveways, landscaping, lighting, loading facilities, parking areas, signs, solar
facilities (except for solar energy systems under Chapter 15.10) and other site features should
show proper consideration for the functional aspects of the site (such as, automobile,
pedestrian and bicycle circulation) and the visual effect of the development on surrounding
areas. Compliance of the project with all applicable development standards in RMC 17.28.020
will reduce project aesthetic impacts for adjacent residents, businesses, pedestrians, and
motorists to less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project will generate new sources of light and
glare compared to the existing conditions with development of the hotel, signage, lighted
parking lot, etc. Compared to the existing paved parking lot with no lighting, the project will
increase the light and glare in the immediate project area.
Project lighting, which will include parking lot lighting, outdoor safety and security lighting, sign
advertising, interior hotel lighting and automobile headlights will generate new light and glare
to the immediate project area. Although there is light and glare associated with the existing
gym, residential units and other commercial uses adjacent to and in the immediate project
vicinity the project will increase the light and glare that currently exists.
Light
In compliance with RMC 17.88.020.A, a photometric study was requested by the City and
prepared by the applicant. The photometric study is based on the proposed types and
electronic technologies of the proposed outdoor lighting fixtures, including light pole heights
to illuminate the site. The results of the photometric study are shown in Figure 12.
The photometric analysis shows that the project will have sufficient levels of exterior lighting
at the hotel entrance, public sidewalks, open space areas and throughout the parking lot. The
project lighting proposes a maximum light of 4.5-foot candles at the north project driveway at
Glendon Way. The project will have a maximum of 4.9-foot candles at the southern driveway
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 12Photometric StudySource: Perfect Design & Development, Inc.N
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 22
at Ivar Avenue and a maximum of 6.3-foot candles in the parking lot along the east project
boundary adjacent to the sidewalk of the UFC building.
Based on the photometric study, the project lighting plan will generate light hotspots on the
site that will extend off-site with accompanying glare resulting in a combination of floodlight
effects that could impact motorist on both Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way. The following
measure is recommended to reduce on- and off-site lighting impact to a maximum of 0.1-foot
candles. The implementation of the following measure will reduce potential lighting impacts
to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant
shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division
that incorporates any of the following light reducing measures
as applicable:
• Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control
and/or different lighting distribution.
• Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of
proposed lighting fixtures.
• Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures.
• Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies
• A combination of the above.
There is existing light and glare generated by the UFC Gym east of the site. Once occupied,
light and glare will be generated by the hotel west of the site that is currently under
construction. While the light and glare that will be generated by the proposed hotel is not out
of character or more intense that other similar commercial uses in the area, the height of the
hotel will generate light and glare at a higher elevation than any existing use in the immediate
vicinity. Thus, the project will increase the amount and intensity of light and glare that
presently exists on the site and the immediate project area. While the project will increase
light and glare on this portion of the site, project light and glare is not new to the area and is
not anticipated to significantly impact adjacent land uses, including the residences north of
the site.
Glare from the windows and metal surfaces of the proposed hotel could impact adjacent land
uses that are glare-sensitive, especially the residences north of the site. The hotel design
includes recessed windows to reduce glare. The windows will be recessed and somewhat
setback in the building with minimal glare from the windows that could impact adjacent
surrounding land uses. Overall, glare by the project to area residents, pedestrians, and
motorists will be less than significant.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 23
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.2 Agricultural Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to
use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing 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 in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
a) No Impact. The project site is paved with asphalt and serves as a surface parking lot.
There are no agricultural uses either on the site or within the immediate vicinity of the site.
The California State Department of Conservation was contacted to determine the California
State Important Farmlands Map designation for the site. The Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) considers the City of Rosemead an urban area. Therefore, none of the soils
have been mapped and the NRCS has no plans to map the soil in the future. The project site
has no farmland designation. Because there are no agricultural uses on or in close proximity
to the site, the project will not impact existing farmland.
b) No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and the project applicant is not
requesting a zone change to allow agriculture use on the property. The project site and the
surrounding properties are developed, located in an urbanized area and not used for
agricultural purposes. Neither the project site nor any surrounding property is in a Williamson
Act contract. The project will not have a conflict or impact any agricultural use or land that is
in a Williamson Act contract.
c) No Impact. The project will not result in or encourage the conversion of agricultural uses
to non-agricultural uses since there are no agricultural uses either on or adjacent to the site
and there are no agricultural activities in the city.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 24
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
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 concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
3.3 AIR QUALITY
An air quality and greenhouse assessment was prepared for the project.3 A copy of the air
quality and greenhouse gas assessment is included as Appendix A.
a) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is
bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and
east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. Air quality in the South Coast Air Basin is
managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air-sheds
with “serious” or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past
decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors (ROG
and NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter are shown in Table 1. Substantial
reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next
several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM-10 and PM-
2.5 are forecast to slightly increase.
3 Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, Hampton Inn, Rosemead, California, Giroux & Associates, November 1, 2016.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 25
Table 1
South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts
(Emissions Tons/Day)
Pollutant 2010a 2015b 2020b 2025b
NOx 603 451 357 289
VOC 544 429 400 393
PM-10 160 155 161 165
PM-2.5 71 67 67 68
a2010 Base Year.
bWith current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts.
Source: California Air Resources Board, California Emissions Projection Analysis Model, 2009
The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air “blueprint” in
August 2003. The 2003 AQMP was approved by EPA in 2004. The Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP) outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health-based
standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM-10) by 2006.
The 2007 AQMP was adopted June 1, 2007, after extensive public review. The 2007 AQMP
recognizes the interaction between photochemical processes that create both ozone and the
smallest airborne particulates (PM-2.5). The 2007 AQMP is therefore a coordinated plan for
both pollutants.
Development, such as the proposed project, do not directly relate to the AQMP in that there
are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing commercial projects. Conformity
with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and
land use is the primary yardstick by which the impact significance of planned growth is
determined. If a given project incorporates any available transportation control measures that
can be implemented on a project-specific basis, and if the scope and phasing of a project are
consistent with adopted forecasts as shown in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), then
the regional air quality impact of project growth would not be significant because of planning
inconsistency. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth-
accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less-than-
significant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth
projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been
analyzed on a project-specific basis.
The project will not significantly affect regional air quality plans because the project will not
generate new or additional vehicle trips that could generate significant increased quantities of
emissions and impact the AQMP. The project will not generate any emissions that will exceed
AQMD adopted thresholds. The project will not impact the AQMP.
b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The air emissions that will be generated by the
project are associated with the demolition of the existing on-site improvements, project
construction and the operation of the hotel upon completion of construction.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 26
Because the project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, the SCAQMD sets and enforces
regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The California Air Resources Board (CARB)
is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. Long-term air quality monitoring is carried
out by SCAQMD at various monitoring stations. There are no nearby stations that monitor
the full spectrum of pollutants. Ozone, carbon monoxide, PM-2.5 and nitrogen oxides are
monitored at the Pico Rivera air monitoring facility, while 10-micron diameter particulate matter
(PM-10) is measured at the Azusa air monitoring station. Table 2 shows the last five years of
monitoring data from a composite of the data resources.
Table 2
Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2010-2014)
Pollutant/Standard 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Ozone
1-Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 1 1 5 2 7
8-Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) 1 1 6 3 7
8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F) 1 0 0 0 5
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.101 0.121
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.092
Carbon Monoxide
1-Hour > 20. ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0
1-Hour > 9. ppm (S, F) 0 0 0 0 0
Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.5
Nitrogen Dioxide
1-Hour > 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09
Inhalable Particulates (PM-10)
24-Hour > 50 mg/m3 (S) 5/55 8/61 6/61 6/61 21/60
24-Hour > 150 mg/m3 (F) 0/55 0/61 0/61 0/61 0/60
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (mg/m3) 68. 63. 78. 76. 94.
Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM-
2.5)
24-Hour > 35 mg/m3 (F) 0/117 1/114 1/119 0/114 0/xx
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (mg/m3) 34.9 41.2 45.3 29.1 35.1
xx - data not available, S=State Standard, F=Federal Standard
Source: South Coast AQMD – Pico Rivera Air Monitoring Station for Ozone, CO, NOx and PM-2.5
Azusa Monitoring Station for PM-10
data: www.arb.ca.gov/adam/
Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD
has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality
impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily
emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds shown in Table 3 are recommended by
the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 27
Table 3
Daily Emission Thresholds
Pollutant Construction Operations
ROG 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
PM-10 150 150
PM-2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
Lead 3 3
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev.
Construction Emissions
Dust is typically the primary pollutant of concern that is generated during grading activities.
Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled
source, they are called "fugitive emissions.” Emission rates vary as a function of many
parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of
disturbance or excavation, etc.).
Average daily PM-10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance average about 10
pounds per acre. This estimate presumes the use of reasonably available control measures
(RACMs). The SCAQMD requires the use of best available control measures (BACMs) for
fugitive dust from construction activities. With the use of BACMs, fugitive dust emissions can
be reduced to 1-2 pounds per day per disturbed acre.
Current research in particulate-exposure health suggests that the most adverse effects derive
from ultra-small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such
as sulfates, nitrates or organic material. A national clean air standard for particulate matter of
2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (called "PM-2.5") was adopted in 1997. A limited amount
of construction activity particulate matter is in the PM-2.5 range. PM-2.5 emissions are
estimated to comprise 10-20 percent of PM-10.
In addition to fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere semi-indefinitely,
construction activities generate many larger particles with shorter atmospheric residence
times. This dust is comprised mainly of large diameter inert silicates that are chemically non-
reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These fugitive dust
particles are therefore more of a potential soiling nuisance as they settle out on parked cars,
outdoor furniture or landscape foliage rather than causing any adverse health hazard.
The CalEEMod was developed by SCAQMD to provide a model to calculate construction
emissions and operational emissions for a residential or commercial project. CalEEMod
calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as
well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The CalEEMod 2013.2.2 computer
model was used to calculate emissions from the default construction equipment fleet and
schedule anticipated by CalEEMod as shown in Table 4.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 28
Table 4
Construction Activity Equipment Fleet
Phase Name and Duration Equipment
Demolition (20 days)
1 Concrete Saw
3 Loader/Backhoes
1 Dozer
Site Prep (3 days)
1 Grader
1 Scraper
1 Loader/Backhoe
Grading (6 days)
1 Grader
1 Dozer
2 Loader/Backhoes
Construction (220 days)
1 Crane
3 Forklifts
1 Generator Set
1 Welder
3 Loader/Backhoes
Paving (10 days)
1 Concrete Mixer
1 Paving Equipment
1 Paver
2 Rollers
1 Loader/Backhoe
Utilizing the equipment fleet in Table 4, the following estimated worst-case daily construction
emissions are listed in Table 5.
Table 5
Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
Maximal Construction
Emissions ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
2015
Unmitigated 17.3 32.5 23.4 0.0 8.4 5.0
Mitigated 17.3 32.5 23.4 0.0 4.4 3.0
2016
Unmitigated 17.3 2.4 2.7 0.0 0.3 0.2
Mitigated 17.3 2.4 2.7 0.0 0.3 0.2
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
As shown in Table 5, the peak daily construction activity emissions are estimated to be below
SCAQMD CEQA thresholds without the need for mitigation. The only model-based mitigation
measure applied to the project was to water all exposed dirt at least three times per day during
construction as required per SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), to minimize the generation
of fugitive dust.
The incorporation of the following measure, as modeled, will reduce project construction
emission impacts to less than significant.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 29
Mitigation Measure No. 2 During construction, the contractor shall apply water three times
daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers'
specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved
road surfaces, and active construction areas.
Operational Emissions
The operational emissions for the project were calculated using CalEEMod2013.2.2 for a
project build-out year of 2018. The project operational emissions are shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Daily Operational Impacts
Operational Emissions (lbs./day)
Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 CO2
Area 2.7* 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 889.1
Energy 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 172.9
Mobile 2.2 5.8 24.0 0.1 3.7 1.1 4,823.1
Total 4.9 5.9 30.0 0.1 3.8 1.1 5,885.1
SCAQMD
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 -
Exceeds
Threshold? No No No No No No NA
Source: CalEEMod Output in Appendix
In addition to motor vehicles, general development causes smaller amounts of “area source”
air pollution to be generated from on-site energy consumption (primarily landscaping) and
from off-site electrical generation (lighting). These sources represent a minimal percentage
of the total project NOx and CO burdens, and a few percent other pollutants. The inclusion
of these emissions adds negligibly to the total significant project-related emissions.
As shown in Table 6, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds.
As a result, the project operational emission impacts will be less than significant.
LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local
level in addition to the more regional emissions-based thresholds of significance. These
analysis elements are called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were
developed in response to Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative
1-4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally
approved by SCAQMD’s Mobile Source Committee in February 2005.
For the project, the primary source of possible LST impact would occur during demolition and
construction activities. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of
nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5). LSTs
represent the maximum emissions that are not expected to cause or contribute to an
exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and
are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor
area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 30
The SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs. LST pollutant screening
level concentration data is currently published for 1, 2 and 5-acre disturbance sites for varying
distances. CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment
hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment
used at the site. Table 7 shows the maximum daily disturbed-acreage for comparison to LSTs.
Table 7
Maximum Daily Disturbed Acreage per Equipment Type
Equipment Type Acres/8-hr-day
Crawler Tractor 0.5
Graders 0.5
Rubber Tired Dozers 0.5
Scrapers 1
Based on the equipment listed in Table 7 for the project and the CalEEMod default, the
equipment fleet will disturb 1.5 acres daily during peak construction grading activity as shown
below:
(1 dozer x 0.5 + 1 grader x 1 = 1.5 acres disturbed).
The applicable thresholds and project construction emissions are shown in Table 8. The LST
emissions thresholds were compared to the maximum daily construction activities. As shown
in Table 8, all on-site project emissions are below the LST for demolition and construction.
The LST emissions of the project will be less than significant.
Table 8
LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day)
LST 1 acre/ 25 meters
S. San Gabriel Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
Max On-Site Emissions * 852 102 6 5
Demolition
Unmitigated 22 30 2 2
Mitigated 22 30 2 2
Site Prep
Unmitigated 19 32 3 2
Mitigated 19 32 2 2
Grading
Unmitigated 21 31 8 5
Mitigated 20 31 4 3
Construction
Unmitigated 17 26 2 2
Mitigated 17 26 2 2
Paving
Unmitigated 12 20 1 1
Mitigated 12 20 1 1
CalEEMod Output in Appendix
*excludes construction commuting, vendor deliveries and possible emissions associated with haul trucking.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 31
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
“Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the
earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred
to as “global warming.” Greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of
the earth’s atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity
to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum.
The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone,
and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, Section 15364.5 of the California
Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel consumption in the
transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the
single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions
globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG
emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions.
Statewide, the framework to develop implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way.
Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, from
greater use of renewable energy and from increased structural energy efficiency.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significance Thresholds
In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines
for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws
as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March, 2010. The CEQA Appendix
G guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would
have a potentially significant impact if it:
• Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment, or
• Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG
emissions.
Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated.
The process is divided into quantification of project-related GHG emissions, making a
determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are
found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG guidelines afford the
lead agency with substantial flexibility.
Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards.
CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to “select the model or methodology it considers most
appropriate”. The most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG emissions
quantification is to use a computer model such as CalEEMod.
The selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration the level of GHG
emissions that would be cumulatively considerable. In September 2010, the SCAQMD
Working Group recommended a threshold of 3,000 MTCO2(e) for all land use projects. This
3,000 MT/year recommendation has been used as a guideline for the GHG analysis for this
project.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 32
Construction Activity GHG Emissions
The build-out timetable for this project is estimated by CalEEMod to be one year. During
project construction, the CalEEMod2013.2.2 computer model predicts that the construction
activities will generate the annual CO2(e) emissions shown in Table 9.
Table 9
Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2(e))
CO2e
Year 2017 364.3
Amortized 12.1
*CalEEMod Output provided in appendix
The SCAQMD GHG emissions policy for construction activities is to amortize construction
emissions over a 30-year lifetime. As shown, the estimated GHG emissions from project
construction activities are 12.1 MTCO2(e) per year, which is less than the threshold of 3,000
MTCO2(e). Therefore, the project GHG impacts are less than significant.
Operational GHG Emissions
The operational and annualized construction emissions were calculated and shown in Table
10. The annual GHG emissions are calculated to be 1,835.6 metric tons CO2(e)/year, which
is less than the significance threshold of 3,000 MT. The operational GHG emissions are less
than significant.
Table 10
Operational Emissions
Consumption Source
Area Sources 0.0
Energy Utilization 676.0
Mobile Source 1,100.3
Solid Waste Generation 30.6
Water Consumption 16.6
Construction 12.1
Total 1,835.6
Guideline Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Consistency with GHG Plans, Programs and Policies
The City of Rosemead has not developed or adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan for
the purpose to reduce GHGs. Therefore, the applicable GHG planning document for the
project is AB-32. As shown above, the project will not have a significant increase in
construction or operational GHG emissions. As a result, the project will generate GHG
emissions below the recommended SCAQMD 3,000 ton/year threshold. Thus, the project
would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.3 “b)” above, the air emissions generated
by the project during demolition, construction and the life of the project will not exceed any
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 33
State air emission thresholds. SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of
cumulative construction or operational emissions, nor provides separate methodologies or
thresholds of significance to be used to assess cumulative construction or operational
impacts. Rather, SCAQMD recommends a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts
should be assessed using the same significance criteria as those for the project’s specific
impacts. Since none of the project’s daily construction or operational air emissions will exceed
the thresholds recommended by SCAQMD, the project will not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons
with the greatest sensitivity to air pollution exposure. Such persons are called “sensitive
receptors”. Sensitive population groups include young children, the elderly and the acutely
and chronically ill (especially those with cardio-respiratory disease).
Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may
be occupied for extended periods, and residents may be outdoors when exposure is highest.
The existing off-site residences adjacent to and north of the site are considered pollution-
sensitive to any project related emissions. Although air emissions will be generated during
project construction and the life of the project, as presented in the air quality assessment, the
project emissions, including construction and operational, will not exceed adopted air
emission thresholds. The project will not exceed air emission thresholds as discussed in
section 3.3 “b)” above, and as a result, will not expose sensitive receptors to any substantial
pollutant concentrations.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. During construction of the project the residents adjacent
to and north of the construction activity may detect some odors from the operation of the on-
site motorized construction equipment. There will be less than seven pieces of construction
equipment operating on the site at any specific time. The potential for all seven pieces of
equipment to operate simultaneously is considered low. Therefore, the odors that will be
generated by the operation of the construction equipment are not anticipated to significantly
impact area residents. Once construction is completed all odors from the operation of the on-
site construction equipment will cease. The hotel operations will not generate any odors that
could significantly impact area residents. Any odors by the project will be less than significant.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 34
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a) No Impact. The site is disturbed and developed with a paved asphalt parking lot. There
are approximately three introduced, non-native trees on the property that will be removed by
the project. There is no native on-site habitat to support native wildlife. There is no classified
or considered to be rare or endangered plant species on the property. In addition, there are
no wetlands on or adjacent to the site. Any wildlife that may exist on the site would be non-
native wildlife associated with urban development, such as domestic dogs and cats, rabbits,
opossum, raccoons, mockingbirds, etc. There are no plants or wildlife on the site that are
designated or will qualify as a sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The project will not impact any biological resources, including plants or
animals.
b) No Impact. The project site and the surrounding area are developed with residential,
commercial, freeway and public facility uses. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural communities either on the site or on any of the surrounding properties. The project
will not impact riparian or sensitive habitat.
c) No Impact. There are no wetlands either on or adjacent to the site. The project will not
impact wetlands.
d) No Impact. The project is developed with a commercial building, a parking lot and other
site improvements. The surrounding properties are developed with residential, commercial,
freeway and public facility land uses. There is no native vegetation or bodies of water on or
surrounding the site. Therefore, neither the project site nor adjacent properties support the
movement of migratory fish or wildlife or support a nursery for wildlife. The project will not
impact or interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 35
species or native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites since there is no habitat on or adjacent to the site that supports wildlife.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the proposed landscape plan, three trees (non-
oak) will be removed during project demolition. The project proposes to plant 57 trees along
Ivar Avenue, Glendon Way, the east and southern project boundary and throughout the site,
including the parking lot. The project will retain and protect in place the two existing oak trees
in the street landscape setback along the west project boundary in compliance with the
Rosemead Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, 17.104. The project will not have any
significant oak tree impacts.
f) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan. The project will not impact any habitat or natural community conservation
plan.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) No Impact. There are no buildings on the site that will be demolished. There are no
historical resources adjacent to the site that will be impacted by the project. Therefore, the
project will not have any historical resource impacts.
b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project site is located in an urbanized area
that has been disturbed due to development activities on both the project site and the adjacent
properties. Because the project site has been disturbed in the past associated with grading
and paving for use as a surface parking lot, any cultural resources that may have existed near
the surface have been previously unearthed or disturbed. There are no records of any
recorded archaeological resources either on or adjacent to the project site. Despite previous
disturbances of the project site in the past that may have displaced archaeological resources
on the surface, it is possible that intact archaeological resources could exist below the surface
area of the site that was previously disturbed during grading. As a result, Mitigation Measures
C-1 through C-4 have been implemented to reduce potentially significant archaeological
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 36
resource impacts to previously undiscovered resources that may be encountered during
project grading and construction to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 3 The project developer shall retain a qualified professional
archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and Standards, to conduct an
Archaeological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel
prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training
session shall be carried out by a cultural resources
professional with expertise in archaeology, who meets the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and
Standards. The training session shall include a handout and will
focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be
encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures
to be followed in such an event, the duties of archaeological
monitors, and, the general steps a qualified professional
archaeologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation
if one is necessary.
Mitigation Measure No. 4 In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during
ground-disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities shall be
halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the
find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be
established around the find where construction activities shall
not be allowed to continue until a qualified archaeologist has
examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated
the area of the find. Work shall be allowed to continue outside
of the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by
project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified
professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the
newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric,
Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be contacted and
consulted and Native American construction monitoring
should be initiated. The project developer and the City shall
coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate
treatment plan for the resources. The plan may include
implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to
address treatment of the resource along with subsequent
laboratory processing and analysis.
Mitigation Measure No. 5 The project developer shall retain a qualified professional
archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications and Standards to conduct periodic
Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below two
(2) feet to determine if construction excavations have exposed
or have a high probability to expose archaeological resources.
After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic
checks shall be conducted at the discretion of the qualified
archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that
construction excavations have exposed or have a high
probability to expose archaeological artifacts construction
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 37
monitoring for Archaeological Resources shall be required. The
project developer shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor,
who will work under the guidance and direction of a
professional archaeologist, who meets the qualifications set
forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications and Standards. The archaeological monitor
shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g.,
grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill younger
Pleistocene alluvial sediments. Multiple earth-moving
construction activities may require multiple archaeological
monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the
rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known
archaeological resources, the materials being excavated
(native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation,
and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological
resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to
part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project
archaeologist.
Mitigation Measure No. 6 The archaeological monitor, under the direction of a qualified
professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, shall
prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological
monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the project
developer, the South Central Costal Information Center, the
City, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned
agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and
required mitigation measures. The report shall include a
description of resources unearthed, if any, evaluation of the
resources with respect to the California Register and CEQA,
and treatment of the resources.
c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project site is located in an urbanized area
that has been previously disturbed by past development activities. Given that the project site
has been disturbed, any cultural resources that may have existed at one time likely have been
previously unearthed or disturbed. No paleontological resources are known to exist within the
immediate project area. However, two previously recorded fossil localities (LACM 7701-7702
and LACM 6350-6361) are located within a three-mile radius of the project site. While
paleontological resources are not anticipated to occur in shallow areas of the site, deeper on-
site excavations may uncover vertebrate fossil remains that could be considered significant.
Any substantial excavations in the proposed project area, therefore, should be closely
monitored to quickly and professionally collect any vertebrate fossil remains without impeding
development. As a result, the following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce
potentially significant paleontological impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 7 The project developer shall retain a professional paleontologist,
who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology, to conduct a Paleontological
Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to
commencement of excavation activities. The training will
include a handout and will focus on how to identify
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 38
paleontological resources that may be encountered during
earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in
such an event; the duties of paleontological monitors;
notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of
resources; and, the general steps a qualified professional
paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage
investigation if one is necessary.
Mitigation Measure No. 8 The project developer shall retain a professional paleontologist,
who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology, shall conduct periodic Paleontological
Spot Checks beginning at depths below six (6) feet to
determine if construction excavations have extended into the
Miocene Puente Formation or into Pleistocene older alluvial
deposits. After the initial Paleontological Spot Check, further
periodic checks will be conducted at the discretion of the
qualified paleontologist. If the qualified paleontologist
determines that construction excavations have extended into
the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits,
construction monitoring for Paleontological Resources will be
required. The project developer shall retain a qualified
paleontological monitor, who will work under the guidance and
direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the
qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology. The paleontological monitor shall be present
during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or
clearing/grubbing) into the Puente Formation or into older
Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth-moving
construction activities may require multiple paleontological
monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the
rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known
paleontological resources and/or unique geological features,
the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils),
and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and
type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological
features encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to
part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified
professional paleontologist.
Mitigation Measure No. 9 In the event that paleontological resources and/or unique
geological features are unearthed during ground-disturbing
activities, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted
away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be
evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established
around the find where construction activities shall not be
allowed to continue until appropriate paleontological treatment
plan has been approved by the Applicant and the City. Work
shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The
project developer and the City shall coordinate with a
professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set
forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to develop an
appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 39
include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations
to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory
processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the
paleontologist’s discretion and to reduce construction delay, the
grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock
samples for initial processing.
Mitigation Measure No. 10 Upon completion of the above activities, the professional
paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results
of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used
in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected
and their significance. The report shall be submitted to the
project developer, the City, the Natural History Museums of Los
Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or
concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the
project and required mitigation measures.
d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. No known human remains exist or are anticipated
to exist on the site. Because the project site has been disturbed, no human remains or
cemeteries are anticipated to be disturbed or impacted by the project. Any buried human
remains would have been uncovered, collected, and/or destroyed at that time of the initial
grading and development of the site. However, these findings do not preclude the existence
of previously unknown human remains below the ground surface, which may be encountered
during construction and excavation associated with the proposed project. Similar to the
discussion regarding archaeological resources above, it is also possible to encounter buried
human remains during construction given the proven prehistoric occupation of the region, the
identification of multiple surface archaeological resources within a half- mile of the project site,
and the favorable natural conditions that would have attracted prehistoric inhabitants to the
area. As a result, the following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potentially
human remain impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure C-9 requires that in the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered
the contractor shall be required to halt work in the immediate area of the find and to notify
the County Coroner, in accordance with Health and Safety Code § 7050.5, who must then
determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of a
supervising archaeologist, determines that the remains are or appear to be of a Native
American, he/she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission for further
investigations and proper recovery of such remains, if necessary. Impacts will be less than
significant with implementation of mitigation.
Mitigation Measure No. 11 If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the
project, the City of Rosemead and the project developer shall
comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The
City of Rosemead and the project developer shall immediately
notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur
until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to
origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the
remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the
coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the
person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD).
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 40
After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have
48 hours to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or
disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any
associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the human
remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the
NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the
reburial with the CHRIS-SCCIC. If the NAHC is unable to
identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a
recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation
of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of
Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures
acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her
authorized representative shall inter the human remains and
items associated with Native American human remains with
appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to
further and future subsurface disturbance.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.6 Geology and Soils
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 on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 41
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?
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
A geotechnical engineering investigation was prepared for the site.4 A copy of the
geotechnical investigation is included in Appendix B.
a i) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located in southern California, which is a
tectonically active area. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting the site depend
on the distance to causative faults, the intensity, and the magnitude of the seismic event. The
Upper Elysian Park Thrust fault zones are considered to have the most significant effect to
the site from a design standpoint. The nearest known active regional fault is the Upper Elysian
Park Fault zones that are located approximately 1.5 miles from the site. There are no known
active faults crossing the property.5 While there is not an active fault either on or adjacent to
the site, a rupture of the Upper Elysian Park fault could impact the project, but impacts would
be less than significant.
a ii) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The seismic hazard map published by the
California Geological Survey was referenced to estimate the seismic ground motions at the
project site. Based on the California Geological Survey information, the peak ground alluvium
acceleration at the site for a 2% and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years is
approximately 0.948g and 0.552g, respectively (2008 NSHMP PSHA Interactive
Deaggregation). The peak ground acceleration (PGA), corresponding to USGS Design Map
Summary Report, ASCE 7-10 Standard is 0.950g. The expected peak acceleration value at
the site of 0.950g and used in all site design criteria.
Mitigation Measure No. 12 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project shall be
designed for a peak acceleration value of 0.950 as
recommended in the geotechnical engineering investigation
and approved by the City Engineer.
a iii) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone as
defined by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (California PRC Div. 2, Chapter 7.8, sec. 2690-
2699.6).6 Based on two borings that were drilled on the property to depths of 51.5 and 31.5
feet, the sediments in the borings indicate that the deposits under the site are not susceptible
to earthquake-induced liquefaction.7 Therefore, based on the geotechnical report the site
would not be significantly impacted by liquefaction.
a iv) No Impact. The site is generally flat. The development surrounding the site is also
generally flat. The project will not be impacted by a landslide or impact any adjacent
properties due to an on-site landslide.
4 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development, 3520 Ivar Avenue, APN 5390-018-
037, Rosemead, California, Cal Land Engineering, Inc. dba Quartech Consultants, March 4, 2016,
5 Ibid.
6 City of Rosemead Geological Report Review No. 2, August 1, 2016, Earth Consultants International
7 Ibid.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 42
b) No Impact. The City will require the project developer to install and provide all appropriate
erosion control measures prior to the start of any on-site demolition or construction and
maintain the erosion control measures throughout project construction. The incorporation of
all applicable standard erosion control measures such as the use of sand bags around the
project perimeter and other measures deemed appropriate by the City will reduce and
minimize soil erosion. The project will not have any significant soil erosion impacts.
c) No Impact. Although the site is currently vacant, the site has been developed in the past
with no evidence of any previous unstable soil conditions. The project proposes to construct
a five-story hotel and other site improvements. Based on the geotechnical report, the grading
and construction activities required to develop the project as proposed are not anticipated to
cause any unstable soil conditions either on or off the site. The project will not have any
significant unstable soil impacts.
d) No Impact. The Rosemead General Plan does not identify any expansive soils on the site
or the project area. Based on the geotechnical report, soil tests were conducted and there
are no expansive soils on the site. The project will not be impacted by expansive soils.
e) No Impact. There is a public sewer system in the streets adjacent to the site. The City will
require the project to connect to and continue to be served by the existing public sewer system
adjacent to the site. The project will not impact soils resulting from alternative disposal
systems.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the likely 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 within one-quarter mile of a
facility that might reasonably be anticipated
to emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances or waste?
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 43
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Be located on a site of a current or former
hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste
disposal site unless wastes have been
removed from the former disposal site; or 2)
that could release a hazardous substance as
identified by the State Department of Health
Services in a current list adopted pursuant to
Section 25356 for removal or remedial action
pursuant to Chapter 6.8 of Division 20 of the
Health and Safety Code?
f) Be located on land that is, or can be made,
sufficiently free of hazardous materials so as
to be suitable for development and use as a
school?
g) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
h) 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?
3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) was prepared for the site.8 The report is
included in Appendix C.
a) No Impact. Based on the Phase I ESA that was conducted for the site on October 3, 2016,
the existing asphalt parking lot does not require the use of or generate any hazardous
materials and impact the public or the environment with the use or transportation of any
hazardous materials. The proposed hotel project does not propose and will not require the
use of, or generate any hazardous materials that would significantly impact the public or the
environment with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The project
will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
b) No Impact. As stated in 3.7 “a)” above, the project will not create a hazard to the public or
the environment from the release of any hazardous materials into the environment.
c) No Impact. Mildred Jansen Elementary School is located approximately one-quarter mile
west of the project and Savannah Elementary School is located approximately three-quarters
mile northeast of the site. The proposed hotel would not emit or handle any hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials or substances that could impact Mildred Jansen Elementary,
Savannah Elementary schools or any other area schools.
8 Limited Phase I Environmental Site Assessment at Proposed Commercial Development at 3520 Ivar Avenue,
Rosemead California, Quartech Consultants, October 5, 2016.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 44
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site has been occupied in the past by
residential dwelling units, a Toys R Us and a Levitz Furniture business.9 The site is currently
paved with asphalt and provides surface level parking for the UFC Gym located adjacent to
and east of the site. As a surface parking lot, there are no hazardous materials generated
from the site.
Based on the State Water Resources Control Board Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Information System, two Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) facilities are located
within 1/2 mile of the site. The two sites include:
• 3603 Rosemead Boulevard (Texaco gas station)
• 3606 Rosemead Boulevard (Texaco gas station)
The two LUST facilities are not anticipated to have any adverse effect on the project site.10
As a result, the potential for the project to be significantly impacted by hazardous materials
from these two LUST facilities is less than significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.7 “d” above, the project site is not located
on a former or current hazardous waste site. Based on the Phase I ESA, the property does
not contain any hazardous materials and has not been used as a hazardous waste site in the
past. Furthermore, there are no liens listed in the United Sates Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA)’s Federal Superfund Liens List, and no known recorded land-use
environmental deed restrictions pertaining to the subject site listed in the California
Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) liens database. The project does not have
the potential to release any hazardous chemicals from the site.
f) No Impact. Based on the Phase I ESA, the site is sufficiently free of and does not contain
any hazardous materials. There are no hazards or anticipated hazards associated with the
project that would prevent the site from being used as a school, or a hotel, as proposed.
g) No Impact. The closest airport is El Monte Airport and approximately 2.5 miles northeast
of the site. The project will not impact current and on-going airport operations at El Monte
Airport or result in any safety hazards for project employees and hotel guests.
h) No Impact. There are no private airports within two miles of the project. The project will
not impact or be impacted by operations of a private airport.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
9 Ibid, page 3.
10 Cal Land Engineering, email October 19, 2016.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 45
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 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 off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner, which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
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?
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, which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
A hydrology study and Low Impact Development (LID) Plan were prepared for the project.11
A copy of the study is included in Appendix D.
11 Hydrology Study/LID Plan for Hotel, 3520 Ivar Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770, October 12, 2016.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 46
a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project could generate silt and other debris
with surface water runoff during project demolition and construction, especially if demolition
and construction occur during the winter months (November – April) when rainfall typically
occurs. The quality of storm water runoff generated from the site is regulated under the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES storm water permit
provides a mechanism for monitoring the discharge of pollutants and establishing appropriate
controls to minimize the entrance of such pollutants into storm water runoff. As a co-permitee
to the County of Los Angeles, (NPDES No. CAS614001) the City of Rosemead requires all
development projects in its jurisdiction to comply with the NPDES requirements for
construction and operations as appropriate. Therefore, the project will be required to install
and maintain all applicable soil erosion control measures, including Best Management
Practices (BMP’s), to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and
construction. The project developer will be required to submit the completed Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit to
ensure that all applicable erosion control measures are installed and maintained during
construction to control water quality impacts.
To control surface water pollution, the project will be required, by law, to install a surface storm
water collection system to collect and treat the first ¾” of surface water runoff from the site
prior to its off-site discharge. To comply with the law, the project proposes to install two
underground dry wells to collect and treat the first ¾” of surface water runoff prior to its
discharge into Ivar Avenue. One dry is proposed for the middle of the parking lot south of the
hotel and a second dry well is proposed within the landscape setback at the southwest corner
of the site. The two dry wells will retain and treat the first ¾” of surface water runoff to remove
pollutants through a variety of biological, physical, and chemical treatment processes. Any
surface water greater than ¾” will be discharged from the dry wells via a drainpipe to the curb
and gutter in Ivar Avenue adjacent to and west of the project.
The proposed dry wells in conjunction with the incorporation of all required BMPs will allow
the project to meet and comply with all applicable water quality and water discharge
requirements.
The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce water quality impacts to less-
than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 13 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project developer
shall submit a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan to
the City for approval. All applicable erosion control measures
including Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and
minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction
shall be installed and maintained during construction to control
water quality impacts.
Mitigation Measure No. 14 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the project
developer shall install a surface storm water collection system
to collect and treat the first ¾” of surface water runoff from the
site as approved by the City Engineer.
Mitigation Measure No. 15 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the project
developer shall install a dry well system with capacity to filter
the first ¾” of project generated storm water prior to its
discharge into Ivar Avenue.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 47
b) No Impact. The project proposes to provide landscaping along the perimeter of the site.
The project also proposes to plant trees along the north and west project boundary. The street
trees along Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way and the landscaped perimeter along the project
boundary will allow on-site water percolation and reduce off-site surface water runoff. The
two dry wells will collect and treat the first ¾” of rain. The two proposed dry wells will collect
and treat surface water runoff from the site that is currently discharged untreated into Ivar
Avenue and the local storm drain system. The project will have a positive impact to the local
groundwater by allowing percolation of more surface water runoff into the groundwater
compared to the existing condition, which currently discharges most of the surface water
runoff off-site. The project will generate approximately 0.17 cubic feet per second (cfs) of
surface water less than the existing condition with the construction of the proposed dry wells
to allow more water to percolate into the local groundwater compared to the existing condition.
Therefore, the project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge, but rather provide two on-site dry wells to collect and
allow more surface water from the site to percolate into and recharge the local groundwater
than currently. The project will not impact the supply of the local groundwater and will not
interfere with groundwater recharge. Rather, the project have a positive impact to the local
groundwater by allowing more surface to percolate and recharge the local groundwater
compared to the existing condition.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The existing storm water drainage pattern of the site is
generally towards the southwest area and eventually discharges to Ivar Avenue west of the
site. As discussed in 3.8 “a)” above, all on-site runoff will be collected by two proposed dry
wells that will collect and discharge excess storm water to Ivar Avenue west of the site. The
project will not alter the general existing drainage pattern on the site or cause erosion or
siltation of a stream or river. The two proposed dry wells will reduce the amount of existing
runoff from the site that is discharged into the local storm drain system and allow some of that
runoff to percolate into the local groundwater. All surface water is currently discharged to Ivar
Avenue. By reducing the amount of runoff that will be generated from the site, the project will
reduce and have a less than significant impact to erosion or siltation either on or off the site.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 “b)” above, the project is estimated to
generate approximately 0.17 cfs of runoff less than the existing condition due to the
construction of two dry wells on the site to collect the first ¾” of surface runoff for water quality
treatment and percolation. The dry wells will reduce the amount of runoff that is currently
discharged to the local storm drain system by approximately 0.17 cfs. By directing the first ¾”
of storm water to the two dry wells, the potential flooding impact by the project would be less
than significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 “d)” above and based on the hydrology
report, the incremental increase in project surface water will be approximately 0.17 cfs less
and not exceed the capacity of either the existing or proposed storm water drainage system
that serves the project. The existing local storm drain system (curb and gutter) in Ivar Avenue
along with the regional downstream storm drain facilities that serve this area of Rosemead
have capacity to handle the runoff by the project, which is calculated to be approximately 0.17
cubic feet per second of surface water less that is currently generated from the site. The
discharge of the first ¾” of rainfall to the two proposed on-site dry wells for water quality
treatment and percolation will reduce the amount of surface currently discharged from the site
by approximately 0.17 cfs. The project will not impact the existing storm drain system that
serves the site.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 48
f) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 “a)” above, the quality of storm water
runoff from the project is regulated under NPDES. The project will be required by law to collect
and treat the first ¾” of storm water runoff from the site to remove debris and other pollutants
prior to any off-site discharge. The first ¾” of surface water runoff from the site will be collected
and directed to two on-site dry wells. One dry well is proposed for the middle of the parking
lot south of the hotel and the second dry well is proposed for the southwest corner of the site.
Low surface water flows will enter the two proposed on-site dry wells and allow low water
flows to percolate into the local soil. Rainfall greater than ¾” will be discharged by a pipe from
each dry well to Ivar Avenue adjacent to and west of the site. Because the first ¾” of rainfall
will be collected and pre-treated before it is discharged from the site, the project impact to
surface water quality will be less than significant.
g) No Impact. The project site is not in a flood hazard zone. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) designates Rosemead to be in Zone “X”, which is outside the
100-year flood plain.12 The proposed hotel will not be placed in a flood hazard area.
h) No Impact. As noted in 3.8 “g)” above, the project is not located in a 100-year flood zone.
The project is not subject to flooding and will not have an impact due to redirecting or impeding
flood flows.
i) No Impact. There are no levees or dams upstream of the project that will flood the site in
the event of a levee or dam failure. The project will not be impacted by the failure of a dam
or levee.
j) No Impact. There are no water bodies either on or adjacent to the project site that will impact
the site due to a seiche. The site is approximately twenty miles east of the Pacific Ocean and
approximately 284 feet above sea level and will not be impacted by a tsunami. The site and
the surrounding areas are flat and not exposed to mudslides.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.9 Land Use and Planning
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 natural community’s
conservation plan?
12 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 06037C1665FF, September 26,
2008.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 49
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) No Impact. Examples of “dividing a community” include new roads, rail lines, transmission
corridors, or a major development project encompassing numerous city blocks that creates a
physical barrier between established neighborhoods or business districts. The project
proposes to construct a 123-room hotel on a site that is adjacent to an existing commercial
use. The hotel is proposed for a parcel of land that is separate from adjacent uses. The
project will not divide the established surrounding community.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Rosemead General Plan designates the site as
Commercial, as shown in Figure 13. The zoning is dual zoned C-3 (Medium Commercial)/D-
O (Design Overlay) and P-D (Planned Development) as shown in Figure 14. The project is
consistent with the Commercial land use designation and will not require a general plan
amendment. The project will require a zone change to remove the P-D zoning designation
and change the current dual zoning to a single zone designation of C-3 with a Design Overlay.
General Plan
The Commercial designation applies to retail and service commercial centers located along
major arterials: (1) Valley Boulevard west of Muscatel, (2) Valley Boulevard near and east of
Rosemead Boulevard, , (3) Garvey Avenue between New Avenue and Charlotte Avenue, (4)
San Gabriel Boulevard between Park Street and Newark Avenue, (5) just west of the Walnut
Grove and Garvey Avenue intersection, (6) along Rosemead Boulevard from Mission Drive to
Valley Boulevard, and (7) Del Mar from the I-10 freeway interchange to Garvey Avenue.
Permitted uses include a broad range of retail, office, and service uses that serve local and
regional needs. Prohibited uses include warehousing, manufacturing, industrial uses, and
similar uses. The maximum permitted FAR is 0.35:1. However, overnight accommodations,
such as hotels, may be developed up to maximum permitted FAR of 1.0:1 if their projects
include higher design standards, the “required hotel amenities” and a minimum of two
“additional hotel amenities” as identified in Table 11.13 If a hotel project does not meet the
amenities in Table 11, they can only build up to 0.35:1 FAR.
Table 11
Required Hotel Amenities (a)
Required Hotel Amenities Additional Hotel Amenities
Ballroom Concierge desk
Business center services Convenience store/snack shop
Meeting rooms Daycare services
Restaurant, bar, and lounge Day spa
Fitness center
Florist and gift shop
Laundry service
Pavilion lounge
Pool or spa/Jacuzzi
Valet parking
Note: a) To obtain higher FAR standard (maximum permitted 1.0:1 FAR), projects must provide all of the amenities
listed under the Required Hotel Amenities column and a minimum of two amenities listed under the Additional
Hotel Amenities column.
13 City of Rosemead General Plan Update, April 13, 2010, page 2-9.
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 13General Plan MapSource: City of RosemeadNProjectLocation
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 14Zoning MapSource: City of RosemeadNProjectLocation
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 52
The project proposes the following amenities:
• Business Center – guest access computer, fax, copy machine
• Complimentary breakfast
• In room wired or wireless high speed internet
• Meeting rooms
• Concierge desk
• Snack shop
• Fitness center
• Laundry service
• Pool
• Reception lounge
• Room service
As listed above, the project proposes three Required Hotel Amenities (business center
services, meeting rooms and complimentary breakfast) and six Additional Hotel Amenities
(concierge desk, snack shop, fitness center, laundry service, pool, and reception lounge).
Although the project does not propose all of the Required Hotel Amenities, it does propose
three of the four Required Hotel Amenities and six of the ten Additional Hotel Amenities.
Therefore, the proposed FAR of 0.89 by the project is consistent with and complies with the
General Plan in terms of the amount of development allowed for the site and consistent with
the Commercial land use designation.
Zoning
The project is consistent with and meets the standards for development in the C-3 Medium
Commercial zone, including the building height. The height of the proposed five-story hotel is
67’ 9” feet and is less than the 75-foot maximum height allowed for development in the C-3
zone. The project meets and complies with all other applicable development standards,
including minimum lot area, minimum lot width/depth, and floor area ratio (FAR).
Design Overlay
The purpose of the design overlay zone is to promote orderly development so that buildings,
structures, signs and landscaping will be harmonious within a specified area; to prevent the
development of structures or uses which are not of acceptable exterior design or appearance
or are of inferior quality or likely to have a depreciating or negative effect on the local
environment or surrounding area by reasons of use, design, appearance or other criteria
affecting value.14
The Design Overlay requires the precise plan for the project be approved by the Community
Development Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The design review of the
precise development plan includes compatibility, architectural design and detail, landscape,
lighting, parking, signs and other design details.15 The review and approval of the precise
development plan in compliance with the design requirements of RMC Section 17.28.020
would ensure the project meets the City’s design requirements for development in the Design
Overlay Zone.
14 RMC 17.28.020.
15 RMC 17.28.020.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 53
As stated above, the project is consistent with the Commercial land use designation, including
the proposed 0.89 FAR due to the proposed Required and Additional Hotel Amenities for the
project. Approval of the requested zone change to remove the P-D zone for the site and
change the dual zone from C-3/D-O and P-D to C-3/D-O will allow the project to be consistent
with the C-3/D-O zone. The project is not anticipated to have any significant land use impacts.
c) No Impact. The City does not have any areas with adopted habitat or natural community
conservation plans. The project will not impact any natural communities or conservation plans
since none exists on or adjacent to the project.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.10 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES
a) No Impact. The State Mining and Geology Board classify land in California on the
availability of mineral resources. There are four Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ) designations
for the classification of sand, gravel, and crushed rock resources. According to the State
Mining and Geology Board,16 the project site is within the MRZ-4 classification17. As
Rosemead is completely urbanized and the State has not identified any significant
recoverable mineral resources, no mineral extraction activities are permitted within the City
limits. There are no mining activities on either the site or the properties surrounding and
adjacent to the site. The project will not have a significant impact to mineral resources of value
to the region or residents of the state.
b) No Impact. Based on information in 3.10 “a)” above, there are no locally important mineral
resources in Rosemead, which includes the project site. The project will not impact any locally
important mineral resource.
16 Update of Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate in Ventura, Los Angeles, and
Orange Counties – Part II, Los Angeles County. Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology,
1994.
17 MRZ-4 – There is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 54
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.11 Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
3.11 NOISE
A noise report was prepared for the project.18 The noise report is included in Appendix E.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located in an urbanized area and adjacent
to Glendon Way, which is a collector roadway adjacent to and north of the site and Ivar
Avenue, an undivided roadway adjacent to and west of the site. A freeway (Interstate 10) is
located approximately 40 feet south of the site. The existing noise levels on the site are due
mostly to traffic on the adjacent roadways, the freeway to the south and the residential and
commercial uses in the immediate vicinity. There is also noise generated by staff and
members of the UFC Gym parking lot adjacent to and east of the site. However, noise from
the gym parking lot is minimal.
Noise Standards
The City of Rosemead limits the amount of noise that crosses the boundary between two
adjacent land uses. For regulated on-site sources of noise generation, the Rosemead noise
ordinance prescribes limits that are considered an acceptable exposure for residential uses in
proximity to regulated noise sources. The L50 metric used in the Rosemead noise ordinance is
18 Noise Impact Analysis, Hampton Inn, City of Rosemead, California, Giroux & Associates, November 4, 2016.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 55
the noise level that is exceeded 50% of the measurement period of thirty minutes in an hour.
One-half of all readings may exceed this average standard with larger excursions from the
average allowed for progressively shorter periods. The larger the deviation, the shorter the
allowed duration up to a never-to-exceed 20 dB increase above the 50th percentile standard.
Nighttime noise levels limits are reduced by 5 dB to reflect the increased sensitivity to noise
occurring during that time period.
The City L50 noise standard for residential uses is 60 dB during the day (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.), and
45 dB at night (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.). For commercial uses, the L50 standard is 65 dB during the day
(7 a.m. – 10 p.m.), and 60 dB at night (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.). These noise standards for residential
and commercial uses are shown in Table 12. In the event that the ambient noise level exceeds
any of the noise standards, the standards shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level.
The standards in Table 12 apply to “stationary” sources of noise generation. For quasi-
residential uses such as a motel, stationary noise generation is normally minimal. Mechanical
equipment (HVAC or pool motors/heaters) is generally the only sources of noise affected by
Code Section 8.36.060.
Table 12
Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits
(Exterior Noise Level not to be Exceeded)
Residential Use Commercial Use
Maximum Allowable
Duration of
Exceedance
7 AM to 10
PM
(Daytime)
10 PM to 7
AM
(Nighttime)
7 AM to 10
PM
(Daytime)
10 PM to 7 AM
(Nighttime)
30 minutes/Hour
(L50) 60 dB 45 dB 65 dB 60 dB
15 minutes/Hour
(L25) 65 dB 50 dB 70 dB 65 dB
5 minutes/Hour (L8) 70 dB 55 dB 75 dB 70 dB
1 minute/Hour (L1) 75 dB 60 dB 80 dB 75 dB
Never (Lmax) 80 dB 65 dB 85 dB 80 dB
Source: Municipal Code Section 8.36.060
The Ordinance also restricts hours of construction to hours of lesser noise sensitivity with heavy
equipment not allowed to operate from the hours of 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. during the week and on
Saturdays and cannot exceed 85 dB at any residential property line (8.36.030.A.3). Construction
is not permitted on Sundays or Federal Holidays.
Baseline Noise Levels
Short-term on-site noise level measurements were recorded to document the existing
baseline noise levels in the immediate project area. The existing noise levels serve as the
basis to project future noise level exposure by the project to the adjacent surrounding
community and noise from the immediate community on the project itself. Noise levels were
recorded on Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at approximately 3:15-3:30 p.m. at two locations.
The locations of the noise measurement are shown in Figure 15 and summarized in Table 13
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 56
Figure 15
Noise Meter Locations
Table 13
Measured Noise Levels (dBA)
Site No. Leq Lmax Lmin L10 L33 L50 L90
1 62 70 57 63 61 59 58
2 60 75 56 63 60 58 57
Noise Meter 1 represents the noise level that is expected to occur at the south side of the
hotel façade that will be closest to Interstate 10 to the south. The ground noise levels of the
proposed hotel will be somewhat protected from freeway noise due to the existing UFC Gym
building and the U-Haul facility that are located off-site and southeast and southwest,
respectively, of the proposed hotel. Measured ground-level noise readings are lower than the
noise levels that are directly exposed to the freeway, including the upper level hotel rooms on
the southern building façade, which may experience higher ambient noise levels.
Past noise monitoring experience indicates that 24-hour weighted Community Noise
Equivalency Levels (CNELs) can be reasonably well estimated from mid-afternoon hour noise
level readings. CNELs are approximately equal to afternoon hour Leq, plus a 2-3 dB increase
Meter 2
Meter 1
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 57
(Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement, 2009). The observed Leq of 62 dB at Meter 1 would
translate into a CNEL of 64-65 dB at ground level. An additional 5 dB was added to be
representative of the potential noise levels at rooms of the upper levels and the resultant noise
loading could be as high as 70 dB CNEL at the hotel façade closest to the freeway.
Noise Meter 2 was located at the northern area of the site, south of Glendon Way. Because
noise Meter 2 is further from the freeway, the observed noise level was several dB lower than
those observed at Meter 1.
The City of Rosemead considers CNELs up to 70 dB to be conditionally acceptable for exterior
recreational use with the requirement of a noise analysis. Depending on the length of the
setback for the hotel, acoustical mitigation could be required at some outdoor recreational
space. However, because such space is anticipated to be located within a partly enclosed
interior courtyard, neither the City’s general plan exterior standard, nor the Code-required
interior compliance threshold, are expected to represent a significant development constraint
to the proposed project due to the existing noise levels.
Future noise levels could increase if traffic volumes were to dramatically increase. However,
the area is substantially built out. Any increase in freeway traffic volumes would be
accompanied by more traffic congestion with slower/quieter travel speeds. No substantial
difference in the existing and future noise levels due to traffic increases is anticipated at the
site.
Off-Site Project-Related Vehicular Noise Impacts
The long-term vehicle noise impacts of the project were determined using the California
specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) from the federal roadway noise model (FHWA
Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108). Table 14 summarizes the
calculated 24-hour CNEL level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline along project area
roadway segments. Four traffic scenarios were evaluated; the existing conditions “with
project” and “without project” and 2018 “with project” and “without project”.
Table 14
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from centerline)
Segment Existing
No
Project
Existing
With
Project
2018 No
Project
2018 With
Project
Glendon Way/ W of Site 62.4 62.5 62.5 62.6
E of Site 63.8 64.3 63.9 64.4
Rosemead Blvd/ Marshall-Glendon 71.5 71.5 71.6 71.6
S of Glendon 72.1 72.1 72.2 72.2
Ivar Ave/ S of Glendon 50.8 52.9 50.9 52.9
I-10/ WB Off-Ramp 65.4 65.4 65.5 65.5
WB On-Ramp 66.7 66.8 66.8 66.9
EB On-Ramp 64.5 64.6 64.6 64.7
EB Off-Ramp 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.5
As shown in Table 14, the increase in noise levels due to project traffic in the opening year
will not significantly increase. Because the project area is built out, the addition of project
traffic to the area roadways will not significantly increase area noise levels. As shown, the
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 58
greatest project related traffic noise level increase is +2.1 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the
roadway centerline on Ivar Avenue at the west side of the project. At this location, Ivar Avenue
south of Glendon Way, the calculated noise level with the project is less than 53 dB (52.9 dB)
CNEL and less than the City recommended compatibility guideline for sensitive use of 65 dB.
The next largest traffic related noise level increase is +0.5 dB CNEL and occurs on Glendon
Way adjacent to the project site. The remainder of the studied roadway segments shows no
discernable increase in traffic noise levels due to project traffic.
A cumulative noise level analysis comparing the future conditions with the project and
cumulative projects is shown in Table 15. As shown, the maximum noise level increase with
the project and cumulative project development is estimated to be +2.2 dB CNEL at 50 feet
from the roadway centerline on Ivar Avenue, adjacent to the project.
Table 15
Project-Related Noise Impact (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from Centerline)
Segment Project
Only
Existing
Project
Only 2018 Cumulative
Impact
Glendon Way/ W. of Site 0.1 0.1 0.2
E. of Site 0.5 0.5 0.6
Rosemead Blvd/ Marshall-Glendon 0.0 0.0 0.1
S. of Glendon 0.0 0.0 0.1
Ivar Ave/ S. of Glendon 2.1 2.1 2.2
I-10/ WB Off-Ramp 0.0 0.0 0.1
WB On-Ramp 0.2 0.2 0.3
EB On-Ramp 0.1 0.1 0.2
EB Off-Ramp 0.1 0.1 0.2
*May differ by +/- 0.1 when in excel rounds down to a 10th of a decimal
Under ambient conditions, people generally do not clearly perceive noise level changes until
there is a 3 dB difference in noise levels. As a result, a threshold of 3 dB is commonly used
to define "substantial increase." An increase of +3 dB CNEL in traffic noise would be
considered a significant impact. Based on the information in Table 15, the maximum noise
level increase by the project and cumulative projects is calculated to be +2.2 dB CNEL at 50
feet from the centerline of Ivar Avenue. Because the cumulative noise level increase of +2.2
dB CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of Ivar Avenue is less than the 3 dB threshold, the
cumulative noise level impact is less than significant.
As shown in Tables 14 and 15, the project traffic noise levels will be less than significant.
On-Site Exterior Traffic Exposure
As discussed earlier, the existing UFC Gym and self-storage buildings located southeast and
southwest of the site, respectively, will attenuate and provide some at-grade noise level
reduction from freeway traffic. The only exterior recreational use is the swimming pool that is
proposed at the southeast corner of the hotel. A 5’-6’ wall is proposed around the swimming
pool for safety and privacy. The proposed wall will reduce noise levels within the swimming
pool area by approximately 5 dB. The resulting 60 dB CNEL at the swimming pool is within
and meets the City’s recommended exterior noise compatibility guidelines.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 59
An interior noise level of CNEL of 45 dB is mandated by the State of California Noise Insulation
Standards (for multiple family dwellings and hotel and motel rooms). Since normal noise
attenuation within commercial structures with closed dual paned windows in modern
construction is approximately 25-30 dB, an exterior noise exposure of 70-75 dB CNEL is
normally the upper limit of desirable exterior noise exposure that can ensure the interior
threshold is met. The upper level hotel units at the southern façade with a line-of-sight to the
freeway south of the site may be exposed to the full freeway traffic noise impact with a noise
level of approximately 70 dB CNEL. Therefore, an interior noise standard of 45 dBA will be
achieved with the State requirement to install closed dual paned windows.
The project will not be significantly impacted by area traffic noise.
Mechanical Equipment (HVAC) Noise
The mechanical equipment that is typically associated with a hotel includes heating,
ventilating, air-conditioning, and refrigeration equipment. Noise generated by rooftop-
mounted mechanical equipment varies significantly depending upon the equipment type and
size. Based on mechanical equipment noise level measurements at similar hotels and
commercial buildings and information from air conditioning and mechanical equipment
manufacturers, noise levels of 54 dBA at 50 feet from the external mechanical systems can
be anticipated for the project. At the nearest residence at a distance of 75 feet or more from
the proposed hotel, noise levels are calculated to be 50 dBA. An additional -5 dBA is
estimated for noise attenuation that will be provided by the proposed parapet wall around the
roof mounted mechanical equipment resulting in an off-site residential noise level of 45 dB
Leq or less. Therefore, the noise levels by the hotel mechanical equipment would be below
both the City of Rosemead daytime and nighttime noise standards of 60 dB and 45 dB,
respectively.
The project applicant will be required by the City to submit engineering and acoustical
specifications for the project mechanical equipment for review prior to the issuance of a
building permit. The engineering and acoustical information will be required to demonstrate
the proposed equipment design combined with the distance separation to the nearest
residential use and/or screen walls will not exceed the City of Rosemead noise standards of
60 dB to any adjacent residential use.
Parking Lot Noise
The traffic report estimates the project will generate an afternoon peak hour traffic volume of
86 vehicle trips. Assuming 50 percent enters the site via Ivar Avenue and 50 percent via
Glendon Way, both drive aisles could have 43 vehicles entering or leaving the site during the
PM peak hour. This traffic volume would equate to a noise level of approximately 46 dB Leq,
which is less than even the most stringent daytime noise standard of 60 dB. Non-peak hour
project traffic volumes would be less than the peak hour traffic. Therefore, the traffic
associated with the hotel parking is not of sufficient volume to exceed the City’s current noise
standards. Parking lot activities may be audible from time to time, but are generally not
perceived as being loud. Parking lot noise at the nearest sensitive use is below the noise
baseline such that people are unlikely to be aware that cars are entering or leaving the lot.
The project is not anticipated to have any significant parking lot noise level impacts to adjacent
residents.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 60
On-Site Noise Generation
The project proposes a passive residential use and will be primarily indoors. The primary
noise sources to off-site land uses that would be of potential concern would be any changes
with the activity within the parking lot. However, as discussed above, the activities associated
with the use of the hotel parking lot and the noise levels associated with those activities will
be minimal. The project is not anticipated to have any significant on-site noise level impacts
and significantly adjacent residential or commercial uses.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Vibration is a trembling, quivering, or oscillating motion of
the earth. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but in this case through the earth or
solid objects rather than the air. Unlike noise, vibration is typically at a frequency that is felt
rather than heard. Vibration can be either natural (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea
waves, or landslides) or man-made (e.g., explosions, the action of heavy machinery, or heavy
vehicles such as trains).
Construction activities generate ground-borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over
unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in the movement of soil. The effects of ground-borne
vibration include discernable movement of floors in buildings, rattling of windows, shaking of
items on shelves or wall hangings and rumbling sounds. Within the “soft” sedimentary
surfaces of much of Southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped. Because
vibration is typically not an issue, very few jurisdictions have adopted vibration significance
thresholds. Vibration thresholds have been adopted for major public works construction
projects, but these relate mostly to structural protection (cracking foundations or stucco) rather
than to human annoyance.
As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may
be characterized in three ways, including displacement, velocity, and acceleration. Particle
displacement is a measure of the distance that a vibrated particle travels from its original
position and, for the purposes of soil displacement, is typically measured in inches or
millimeters. Particle velocity is the rate of speed at which soil particles move in inches per
second or millimeters per second. Particle acceleration is the rate of change in velocity with
respect to time and is measured in inches per second or millimeters per second. Typically,
particle velocity (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and/or acceleration
(measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration.
Vibration is most commonly expressed in terms of the root mean square (RMS) velocity of a
vibrating object. RMS velocities are expressed in units of vibration decibels. The range of
vibration decibels (VdB) is as follows:
65 VdB - threshold of human perception
72 VdB - annoyance due to frequent events
80 VdB - annoyance due to infrequent events
100 VdB - minor cosmetic damage
To determine the potential vibration impacts of the project’s construction activities, estimates
of the calculated vibration levels generated by the construction equipment that will be used by
the project to construct the project at various distances are shown in Table 16.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 61
Table 16
Estimated Vibration Levels From Project Construction Activities
Approximate Vibration Levels (VdB)*
Equipment 25 feet 50 feet 65 feet 100 feet
Large Bulldozer 87 81 79 75
Loaded Truck 86 80 78 74
Jackhammer 79 73 71 67
Small Bulldozer 58 52 50 46
* (Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise & Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 1995)
The piece of construction equipment that will create the maximum potential vibration during
project construction is a large bulldozer. The vibration source level in the FTA Handbook for
a large bulldozer is 81 VdBA at 50 feet from the source. With typical vibrational energy
spreading loss, the vibration annoyance standard of 80 VdB for infrequent events is met at 56
feet. Effects of vibration perception such as rattling windows could only occur at the nearest
residential structures and not exceed cosmetic damage thresholds.
Large bulldozers will not likely operate directly at the property line. A landscaped area is
proposed along the north project boundary. The closest residential use to the project is the
residences north of Glendon Way and approximately 75 feet from the proposed hotel. At this
distance, the calculated vibration levels will be less than 80 VdB. Other types of construction
equipment that will be used on the site will generate vibration levels to area residents less
than the vibration levels generated by a large bulldozer, which are determined to be less than
the maximum annoyance level of 80 VdB. Based on the estimated vibration levels of the on-
site construction equipment the project will have less than significant vibration impacts.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.11 “a)” above, project generated
noise must comply with the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance in terms of the allowable noise
levels. The City noise limits that are considered an acceptable exposure for residential uses
in proximity to regulated noise sources were shown in Table 12. As shown in Table 14, the
project generated traffic noise levels are not projected to increase significantly and impact
area residents or businesses. Thus, the project will not significantly change or increase the
existing levels of noise that exist on the site. The project will not have a substantial permanent
increase in the existing (ambient) noise levels on or adjacent to the site. The potential noise
impacts of the project will be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate short-term noise during project
demolition of the existing site improvements and grading and construction of the hotel and
site improvements such as the parking lot, underground utilities, installation of landscaping,
etc. Figure 16 shows the typical range of construction equipment noise during various
construction phases. The earth-moving sources are seen to be the noisiest with equipment
noise ranging up to about 95 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. Existing buildings and other
noise barriers to interrupt line-of-sight conditions, the potential “noise envelope” around
individual construction sites is reduced.
The closest residents to the project are north of Glendon Way and approximately 75 feet from
the proposed hotel. The Qiao Garden Hotel, which is under construction, is approximately 80
feet west of the site and west of Ivar Avenue. While it is unlikely that the heaviest piece of
construction equipment, which in this case would be a large bulldozer, would operate at either
the west or north property line, but if a large bulldozer did operate at the property line the City
of Rosemead construction noise standard of 85 dB could be marginally exceeded for the time
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 62
Figure 16
a large bulldozer operated at the west or north property line. For equipment operating closer
to the center of the site, noise levels would be 10 dB lower because of attenuation of the noise
level due to an increase in distance and would not exceed the 85 dB noise level.
The Rosemead Noise Ordinance restricts the hours of construction. As a result, the use of all
construction equipment, including heavy equipment, is not allowed to operate from the hours of
8 P.M. to 7 A.M. from Monday through Saturday and not exceed 85 dB at any residential property
line (RMC 8.36.030.A.3). Furthermore, construction is not permitted on Sunday or a federal
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 63
holiday. Compliance with RMC 8.36.030 A.3 that restricts construction activity from 7 A.M. to
8 P.M. Monday through Saturday and no construction on Sunday or a federal holiday will
reduce potential construction noise impacts to less than significant.
e) No Impact. The closest airport is El Monte Airport, which is approximately 4 miles northeast
of the site. Operations at the El Monte Airport will not expose project residents, employees or
customers to excessive noise levels. The project will not be impacted by or impact operations
at the El Monte Airport
f) No Impact. See response to 3.11 “e” above.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.12 Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g.,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to construct a 123 room Hampton
Inn & Suites on an existing surface parking lot. The project does not include the construction
of any housing or other use that would directly or indirectly increase the population of
Rosemead. The people that would be employed by the project are anticipated to commute
from their current place of residence and not move specifically to Rosemead once employed
by Hampton Inn. For the employees that do move to Rosemead once employed by the
project, the number of people that relocate to Rosemead is not anticipated to significantly
induce a substantial population growth in Rosemead, or any other surrounding area. The
project will have a less than significant impact to the population of Rosemead.
b) No Impact. The project site is a paved surface parking lot for the UFC Gym. There are
houses on the site, thus no existing houses will be displaced by the project. The project will
not displace any existing housing that necessitates the construction of replacement housing.
c) No Impact. As noted in 3.12 “(b)” above, no existing houses will be removed from the site,
thus no people will be displaced by the project. The project will not displace any people and
require the construction of replacement housing.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 64
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.13 Public Services
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?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Los Angeles County Fire Department Fire provides fire
protection services to the site. The project must meet and comply with all applicable California
Building Codes (CBC) for a hotel. As a result, the project is not anticipated to have a
significant impact on the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection services are provided by the Los Angeles
County Sheriff Department. The Temple Sheriff’s Station located at 8838 Las Tunas Drive
serves the project site. Compared to the existing surface parking lot, the project would
increase calls for police protection due to the presence of the hotel and more activity on the
site compared to existing condition. The incorporation of security measures, such as
surveillance cameras, proper lighting, and secure doors and windows will minimize the
increase in service calls to the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. The project will have
less than significant impacts to the Sheriff Department.
c) No Impact. The project is in the Garvey School District. The project will not directly
generate students to the schools in the District. The District collects a development fee for
commercial development, which includes the proposed project. The student impact fee is
used by schools to provided additional classrooms to accommodate the students generated
by commercial development. The project developer will be required to pay the State
mandated development fee to the District before a building permit is issued for construction.
The payment of the required development fee will reduce any indirect student impacts.
d) No Impact. The project will not increase the use of parkland in Rosemead by hotel guests
or employees and impact existing parks. The project will not impact City parks.
e) No Impact. There are no activities associated with the project that will require or need
public facilities or result in an impact to public facilities.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 65
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.14 Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
3.14 RECREATION
a) No Impact. As discussed in Section “3.13 d)” above, the project will not impact existing
recreational facilities in Rosemead.
b) No Impact. The project proposes a swimming pool that will be available for use by hotel
guests. The proposed swimming pool is included in the design of the hotel and its construction
will not have any physical impact on the environment. The project will not construct new or
expand existing city recreational facilities that could have a physical effect on the environment.
The project will not have any recreational facility construction impacts.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.15 Transportation/Traffic
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 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 management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 66
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
3.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
A traffic report was prepared for the project.19 The traffic report is included in Appendix F.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The traffic study estimates the project will generate
approximately 1,097 average daily vehicle trips, including 82 AM peak hour trips and 86 PM
peak hour trips as shown in Table 17.
Table 17
Project Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Split Split
Land
Use Unit
ITE
Land
Code
Quantity Daily
Rate Rate In Out Rate In Out
Hotel Occupied
Rooms 310 123 8.92 0.67 58% 42% 0.70 49% 51%
Project Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Volume Volume
Land Use Quantity ADT Total In Out Total In Out
Hotel 123 1,097 82 48 34 86 42 44
Total 1,097 82 48 34 86 42 44
* Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition
The project is proposed to be constructed in a single phase and completed in 2018. Baseline
20187 traffic volumes, the estimated opening year of the project, were developed by factoring
existing 2016 volumes by an ambient growth rate of 1% and then adding traffic from future
cumulative development projects in the area.
The traffic report studied six intersections surrounding the site as shown in Figure 17. The
following intersections are included in the study area for analysis:
1. Glendon Way and Ivar Avenue (1-way stop);
2. Glendon Way and I-10 Westerly westbound On/Off Ramp (2-way stop);
3. Glendon Way and Rosemead Boulevard (Signalized);
4. Glendon Way and I-10 Easterly westbound On/Off Ramp (1-way stop);
5. Marshall Street and Rosemead Boulevard (Signalized); and
6. Valley Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard (Signalized).
19 Hampton Inn Traffic Impact Study, Rosemead, CA, Stantec, October 5, 2016.
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 17Studied IntersectionsSource: StantecN
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 68
The traffic study evaluated the Level of Service (LOS) at the six intersections for both the
Existing 2016 and the Baseline 2018 with project conditions using the Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) and HCM operations methods for signalized intersections and the HCM
operations method for the unsignalized intersections. The target level of service has been
established by the City Rosemead as Level of Service D (or E for CMP intersection) based
on ICU analysis.
The project site will have three (3) driveways for ingress and egress as shown on the site plan:
1. Full-access driveway on Glendon Way located approximately 170 feet west of Ivar
Avenue (proposed)
2. Full-access driveway on Ivar Avenue located approximately 240 feet south of Glendon
Way (existing)
3. Full-access driveway on Ivar Avenue located approximately 450 feet south of Glendon
Way (existing)
Because the driveway at Glendon Way is the main access point and the other two driveways
require additional turning movements to access the site, 60% of all project-generated trips are
assigned to enter and exit the main driveway at Glendon Way and 40% of the trips are
assigned to the two existing driveways on Ivar Avenue. Of those 40%, 30% are assigned to
the north driveway and 10% to the south driveway.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Figure 18 shows the distribution and assignment of the estimated project traffic. As shown,
twenty-five percent (25%) of the project traffic is assigned to/from both the east and west,
respectively, via the I-10 Freeway. Fifteen percent (15%) of the traffic is assigned to/from the
north via Rosemead Boulevard and Glendon Way/Muscatel Avenue. Moreover, twenty
percent (20%) of project traffic is assigned to the south via Rosemead Boulevard.
The in-bound trips originating from the I-10 westbound have two route options to reach the
site; exiting the I-10 WB off-ramp and continuing west to the easterly outlet, passing through
the intersections of Glendon Way/Rosemead Boulevard and Glendon Way/westerly I-10 WB
off-ramp to the site; or exiting the I-10 WB off-ramp to the westerly outlet and turning left and
continuing west on Glendon Way to the site. The latter route allows drivers to avoid waiting at
two additional intersections before reaching the site, thus being the preferable route to the
site. Thus, two-thirds (2/3) of the in-bound traffic trips coming from I-10 WB are assigned to
exit the westerly I-10 WB off-ramp and a third (1/3) are assigned to the easterly I-10 WB off-
ramp. The third of the trips assigned to the easterly I-10 WB off-ramp account for drivers that
may be unaware of the more direct route or have mistakenly taken the wrong exit.
Existing 2016 and Baseline 2018 Conditions
As shown in Table 18, all of the six studied signalized and unsignalized intersections currently
(2016) operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. The Baseline
2018 traffic condition without the project was also analyzed using an ambient traffic growth
factor of 1% per year that was applied to the 2016 volumes along with cumulative traffic from
other known development projects with traffic that would pass through the six study area
intersections. As shown in Table 19, for the Baseline 2018 peak hour conditions without the
project, all of the studied intersections will continue to operate at Level of Service D or better
with one exception. The one exception is the Valley Boulevard/Rosemead Boulevard
intersection, which is calculated to have an LOS of E (ICU of 0.91) during the AM peak hour.
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 18Project Trip DistributionSource: StantecN
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 70
Table 18
Existing 2016 – Study Area Intersections Level of Service without Project
Table 19
Baseline 2018 – Study Area Intersections Level of Service without Project
Existing 2016 with Project Conditions
The LOS analysis for the existing 2016 with the project conditions are shown in Table 20. As
shown, the existing 2016 condition with project traffic for the peak hour conditions all of the
six studied area intersections will continue to operate at Level of Service D or better based on
ICU analysis of signalized intersection. While the intersections of Marshall Street/ Rosemead
Boulevard and Valley Boulevard/Rosemead Boulevard have an existing (2016) LOS of E and
the addition of project peak hour trip volumes will increase this delay by no more than 1.37%,
the current LOS E will not change due to the project.
Figure 19 shows that the roadways surrounding the project are calculated to operate below
their design capacity based on 24-hour volumes for the Existing 2016 conditions with the
project.
Delay (sec.)LOS ICU LOS Delay (sec.)LOS ICU LOS
0.74B14.0
55.5
13.0 B
A
E 68.5
E 0.88 D5. Rosemead Blvd / Marshall St 43.8 D 0.86 D
15.6
AM Peak Hour
ICU ICU
0.89
1. Ivar Ave / Glendon Way
AM Peak Hour
Unsignalized Intersections
LOS
Signalized Intersections
PM Peak Hour
A
A0.8
2.7
6. Rosemead Blvd / Valley Blvd 66.4 D
Delay (sec.)
E
2. I-10 WB On-Ramp / Glendon Way
4. I-10 WB Off-Ramp / Glendon Way A
0.5
1.9
Delay (sec.)
HCM
LOS
3. Rosemead Blvd / Glendon Way
11.0 B
HCM
HCM HCM
PM Peak Hour
0.85 D
B 0.78 CC
Delay (sec.)LOS ICU LOS Delay (sec.)LOS ICU LOS
2. I-10 WB On-Ramp / Glendon Way 11.2 B 13.7 B
E56.1
A
PM Peak Hour
0.89 D5. Rosemead Blvd / Marshall St 51.2 D 0.87 D
3. Rosemead Blvd / Glendon Way 15.0 B 0.75 C 16.5
AM Peak Hour
ICU ICU
0.91
1. Ivar Ave / Glendon Way
AM Peak Hour
Unsignalized Intersections
LOS
Signalized Intersections
LOS
A
A0.8
2.7
6. Rosemead Blvd / Valley Blvd 69.1 E
Delay (sec.)
E
4. I-10 WB Off-Ramp / Glendon Way A
71.3E
0.5
1.9
Delay (sec.)
HCM HCM
HCM HCM
PM Peak Hour
0.86 D
B 0.79 C
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites – Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01 Page 71 Table 20 Existing 2016 - Study Area Intersections Level of Service with Project Delay (sec.)LOS ICU LOSDelay (sec.)LOS ICU LOSDelay (sec.)LOS ICU LOSDelay (sec.)LOS ICU LOSBE55.5A5. Rosemead Blvd / Marshall St43.8 D 0.86 D2. I-10 WB On-Ramp / Glendon Way11.0 BB 0.74 C 15.6PM Peak Hour0.88 DAM Peak HourICUICU0.891. Ivar Ave / Glendon WayAM Peak HourLOSLOS3. Rosemead Blvd / Glendon Way14.0AA0.82.76. Rosemead Blvd / Valley Blvd66.4 DDelay (sec.)E4. I-10 WB Off-Ramp / Glendon WayA68.5E0.51.9Delay (sec.)13.0HCMHCMHCMHCMPM Peak Hour0.85 DB 0.78 CExisting 2016 with ProjectAM Peak HourPM Peak HourHCMICUHCMICU16.3 B 0.76 C 16.7 B 0.79 C44.4 D 0.86 D 55.6 E 0.88 DHCM66.9 E 0.89 D 68.5 E1.1 A 1.3 A0.85 DExisting 2016 with ProjectAM Peak HourPM Peak HourHCM11.2 B 14.8 B1.9 A 2.6 AExisting 2016Existing 2016Unsignalized IntersectionsSignalized IntersectionsDelay (sec.)LOSDelay (sec.)LOS
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 19Year 2016 With Project 24-Hour Trac VolumesSource: StantecN
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hampton Inn and Suites - Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01
Page 73
Baseline 2018 with Project Conditions
The LOS analysis for the Baseline 2018 with the project are shown in Table 21. As shown,
all studied signalized intersections will continue to operate at the same LOS as forecast for
the Baseline 2018 condition, with the exception of the I-10 westbound on-ramp at Glendon
Way that will change from LOS B to LOS C during the PM peak hour.
Baseline 2018 with Project Conditions
The LOS analysis for the Baseline 2018 with the project are shown in Table 21. As shown,
all studied signalized intersections will continue to operate at the same LOS as forecast for
the Baseline 2018 condition, with the exception of the I-10 westbound on-ramp at Glendon
Way that will change from LOS B to LOS C during the PM peak hour.
Study Area Intersections Level of Service
All unsignalized study area intersections will continue to operate at LOS B or better during
peak hours, with the exception of the westerly I-10 WB off-ramp outlet at Glendon Way that is
calculated to operate at the desirable LOS C during the PM peak hour.
Figure 20 shows that the roadways surrounding the site are calculated to operate below their
design capacity based on 24-hour volumes for the Baseline 2018 with the project conditions.
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Traffic signal warrant analysis were conducted for the three (3) non-signalized intersections
within the study area, which includes Ivar Avenue/Glendon Way, westerly I-10 westbound
freeway ramp/Glendon Way, and easterly I-10 westbound freeway ramp/Glendon Way. The
traffic signal warrant analyses were calculated for the greatest traffic volumes and included
the Baseline 2018 with the project conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours.
Based on the traffic signal warrants, none of the studied intersections satisfied a warrant for
signalization, with the exception of the Glendon Way/westerly I-10 WB on- and off-ramp
intersection during the PM peak hour. However due to the proximity of this intersection to the
signalized Glendon Way/Rosemead Boulevard intersection, signalization of the Glendon
Way/westerly I-10 WB on- and off-ramp intersection is not considered feasible because it
would inhibit progressive traffic flow. There are no special circumstances that exist at this
intersection to indicate the need for signalization either with the existing or future forecast
traffic conditions. Therefore, the traffic signal warrant analysis is not considered appropriate
for the signalization of this intersection. This finding is supported by the desirable LOS B and
C operating conditions that are calculated for the peak hours for both the existing and future
with the project conditions.
Traffic signal warrant analyses were also conducted for the three proposed project driveways.
Based on the traffic signal warrants, none of the project driveways require signalization.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites – Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02, Zone Change 16-01 Page 74 Table 21 Baseline 2018 - Study Area Intersections Level of Service with Project Delay (sec.)LOS ICU LOSDelay (sec.)LOS ICU LOSDelay (sec.)LOS ICU LOSDelay (sec.)LOS ICU LOS0.79 CA71.3E0.51.9Delay (sec.)HCMHCMPM Peak Hour0.86AA0.82.76. Rosemead Blvd / Valley Blvd69.1 EDelay (sec.)E4. I-10 WB Off-Ramp / Glendon WayICU0.911. Ivar Ave / Glendon WayAM Peak HourLOSLOSHCMHCMDBB 0.75 C 16.5AM Peak HourICUPM Peak Hour0.89 D5. Rosemead Blvd / Marshall St51.2 D 0.87 D3. Rosemead Blvd / Glendon Way15.02. I-10 WB On-Ramp / Glendon Way11.2 B 13.7 BE56.1ABaseline 2018Unsignalized IntersectionsAM Peak HourPM Peak HourHCMICUHCMICU17.6 B 0.77 C 18.2 B51.9 D 0.87 D 56.1 E0.91 E 71.4 E0.80 C0.89 DA0.86 DAM Peak HourPM Peak HourHCMHCMBaseline 2018 with Project69.7 E1.9 A 2.7 ADelay (sec.)LOSDelay (sec.)LOS1.1 ASignalized IntersectionsBaseline 2018Baseline 2018 with Project11.5 B 15.7 C1.3
HAMPTON INN & SUITES | CITY OF ROSEMEADPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 20Year 2016 With Project 24-Hour VolumesSource: StantecN
Page 76
Queuing Analysis at Westerly I-10 WB Ramps
A queuing analysis was conducted at the on- and off-ramp movements at the westerly I-10
WB ramps at the intersection of Glendon Way. A 2-hour PM peak period (4-6 PM, Tuesday,
September 27, 2016) in-field observation study was conducted of the existing conditions.
Based on this visual observation, there are no concerns with vehicles queuing at the westerly
I-10 WB on- and off-ramps. Only a PM peak period field review was required because traffic
data shows greater ramp volumes during the PM peak period compared to the AM peak
period. The PM peak period field observation for the more conservative PM peak hour period
confirmed the maximum vehicle queue never exceeded the existing queuing capacity for
either ramp.
A SimTrafficTM simulation, generated from the SYNCHROTM model, also confirmed that
maximum vehicle queues never exceeded queuing capacity, including with projected trip
volumes. This is consistent with the SYNCHROTM analysis that shows the project queueing
impact is calculated to be negligible.
The project traffic will not cause any of the six studied intersections to exceed an unacceptable
level of service, or their existing level of service. All area roadways will continue to operate
within their design capacity. The project traffic will have less than significant traffic impacts to
the six studied area intersections.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.15 “a)” above, the project is estimated
to generate 1,097 daily vehicle trips. The traffic report used the opening year of 2018 as the
traffic analysis baseline based on the date the project is scheduled to be completed and
operational. The 2018 baseline traffic volumes were developed by factoring the existing 2016
traffic volumes with an ambient growth rate of 1% and traffic from two cumulative development
projects in the project area. The 2018 cumulative traffic volumes were used to determine the
potential project traffic impact to the area transportation system. The 2018 traffic volumes
shown in Figure 23 take into the account the 1% estimated growth in area traffic and traffic
from the two identified cumulative projects. As discussed in Section 3.15 “a” above, the
project will not have any significant traffic impacts, which includes cumulative project traffic.
All area intersections will continue to operate at City acceptable levels of service with the
project and the cumulative projects.
In addition to the Rosemead General Plan, the standards and requirements of the Los Angeles
County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) provides the basis for evaluating the potential
for project traffic impacts within Rosemead. For purposes of the CMP, a significant impact
occurs when a proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity
(v/c > 0.02), causing LOS F (v/c > 1.00) and if the facility is already LOS F, a significant impact
occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of
capacity (v/c > 0.02). The Valley Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard intersection is currently
identified as a County CMP intersection. This intersection does not meet the criteria for a
significant impact by the project, including cumulative traffic, for either the existing 2016 or the
Baseline 2018 with project conditions. Therefore, the project will not have a significant
cumulative traffic impact to the County CMP.
The project will not cause any roadways or intersections to exceed, individually or
cumulatively, their current level of service. As a result, the project will have less than
significant cumulative traffic impacts to any area intersections that will serve the project.
Page 77
c) No Impact. There are no existing bus stops on either Glendon Way or Ivar Avenue adjacent
to the site. Therefore, the project will not impact any existing bus stops adjacent to the site.
The project does not propose to construct or install any new bus stops along the project
frontage on Glendon Way or Ivar Avenue. The project proposes to install 20 bicycle stalls as
a viable alternative for the use of motor vehicles and exceeds the Rosemead Municipal Code
(RMC 12.32.030 B.) requirement of five bicycle stalls for the project. Thus, the project
exceeds the number of required bicycle stalls by 15 spaces.
The project will not have any significant conflicts or impacts with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation. The project will have a positive impact by
provided 15 bicycle parking stalls more than required by the City.
d) No Impact. Ingress and egress for the project will be served by the existing adjacent
streets, which includes Glendon Way and Ivar Avenue. The main project driveway is from
Glendon Way. Two additional driveways, which currently exist, are located on Ivar Avenue
along the west project boundary. All three driveways will provide full vehicle ingress and
egress to the site. The project does not propose to change or modify any of the existing
driveways that will serve the project or other existing features to the adjacent streets that
would create a traffic hazard.
As discussed in Section 3.15 “a)” above, traffic signal warrants were conducted for the three
project driveways. Based on the traffic signal warrants, none of the project driveways requires
signalization.
On-Site Circulation
The three project driveways and parking aisles are appropriately sized and configured for the
project volumes and must meet City of Rosemead design standards before a building permit
will be issued. In addition, sight-distance requirements at the project driveways must meet
City design standards before issuance of a building permit.
Based on the traffic analysis, the project will not substantially increase any hazards due to a
design feature or incompatible uses. The project will not have any significant traffic hazard
impacts.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in 3.15 “d” above, the project proposes three
separate full service driveways for motor vehicle access into and out of the site. The main full
service driveway is located at Glendon Way and two additional existing driveways are located
along Ivar Avenue along the west project boundary. All three driveways provide full site
access for emergency vehicles, including the police and fire departments and other
emergency equipment to enter the site in case of an on-site emergency. The driveways will
be required to meet City driveway standards prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
project does not pose any unique conditions that raise concerns for emergency access, such
as narrow, winding roads or dead-end streets. The site plan was reviewed and approved by
the City’s Traffic Consultant and the Los Angeles County Fire Department to ensure that site
access complies with all emergency access standards. Based on site plan review by the
City’s Traffic Consultant and Los Angeles County Fire Department, the project will not have
any significant emergency access impacts.
f) No Impact. The project proposes 125 parking spaces, which includes 95 standard parking
spaces, 20 compact spaces, 5 recreational vehicle spaces and 5 handicap spaces. The City
Page 78
parking code requires a total of 125 spaces. The project meets the number of parking spaces
required by the City. The project also proposes 20 bicycle stalls to encourage the use of
bicycles by project employees. As required by RMC 12.32.030 B., the proposed 20 bicycle
stalls exceeds the City’s requirement of five bicycle spaces by 15 spaces. The project meets
the parking requirements of the Rosemead Municipal Code. The project will not have any
parking impacts.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water 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 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
provider’s existing commitments?
f) 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?
3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) No Impact. The project will not exceed any wastewater treatment requirements of the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will be required to connect to the
same public wastewater treatment system that currently serves the area and will not generate
a quality of wastewater that will impact the ability of the County Sanitation Districts of Los
Page 79
Angeles County wastewater treatment facility to not meet the wastewater discharge
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will not impact
wastewater treatment requirements.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will consume more water and generate more
wastewater than the existing surface parking lot. The project is estimated to consume
approximately 18,450 gallons of water per day and 15,375 gallons of wastewater per day as
shown in Tables 22 and 23, respectively. The project water and wastewater needs can be
accommodated by existing water and wastewater facilities and construction of new or
expanded water or wastewater facilities will not be required. The project will be required to
install State mandated low flow water fixtures to minimize water consumption and wastewater
generation. The project will not require the construction of any sewer or water lines and have
any significantly environmental impacts.
Table 22
Estimated Project Water Consumption
Use Units/Employees Consumption Rate Consumption
Hotel 123 rooms/ 6
employees
150 gallons/room/day 18,450 gallons/day
Total 18,450 gallons/day
Table 23
Estimated Project Wastewater Generation
Use Units/Sq. Ft. Generation Rate20 Generation
Hotel 123 rooms 125 gallons/day/room 15,375 gallons/day
Total 15,375 gallons/day
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.8 “a”, the project will not
generate more storm water runoff than the existing storm drain facilities can handle. The
project will not be required to construct any new off-site storm drain or surface water collection
facilities. The first ¾” of rainfall of any rainfall event will be retained and discharged to two on-
site dry wells in the surface parking lot and the landscaping area at the southwest corner of
the site. The two dry wells will treat the first ¾” of rainfall and allow the collected runoff to
percolate into the local groundwater. The project is estimated to generate approximately 0.17
cfs of surface less than the existing condition. Because the project will generate less off-site
storm water flows than the existing condition, the project will not require the construction of
any storm water facilities and have a less than significant impact to storm drain facilities.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Water will be consumed daily by hotel guests and hotel
operations, which includes landscape irrigation. The installation of State required low flow
water fixtures for hotels will reduce the quantity of water that is consumed on-site. The project
will not have a significant impact on the local water supply or require new or expanded water
supplies.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate wastewater to the local sewer
collection system. The project site can be served by an 8-inch sewer line in Glendon Way.
This existing sewer line has capacity to serve the project. The project will be required to install
20 County of Los Angeles Sanitation District No. 22, Service Charge Loadings, July 1, 2014-June 30, 2014.
Page 80
State mandated low-flow water fixtures to minimize water consumption and wastewater
generation. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County has capacity to collect and treat
the wastewater generated by the project without the need to install large sewer lines or expand
the capacity of the existing wastewater treatment plant. The project is not anticipated to
significantly impact the capacity of the local wastewater treatment plant.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate approximately 161 tons per year
of solid waste based on a rate of 7.17 pounds/day/room.21 The solid waste from the project
will be hauled to the Puente Hills Landfill. Solid waste collection will be required to conform
to RMC Chapter 8.32 Garbage and Rubbish Disposal in terms of collection hours, trash
enclosures, screening, etc. The project is not anticipated to have any significant solid waste
impacts.
g) No Impact. The project will comply with all applicable solid waste regulations and have no
solid waste regulation impact.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.4, the project will not have any impacts to special
status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and migration because no rare or
21 2014 Generator Based Characterization of Commercial Sector Disposal and Diversion in California, CalRecycle,
Contractor’s Report Produced under Contract By, Cascadia Consulting Group, September 10, 2015.
Page 81
endangered plant or animals exist on the site. The project will not affect the local, regional,
or national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species and will not threaten any plant
communities because no native plants or animals exist on the property. As discussed in
Section 3.5, the project will not eliminate any examples of California history or prehistory or
substantially impact historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources since none of
these resources either exist or are suspected to exist on the site. The project will not have
any biological or cultural resource impacts.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no aspects of the project that have the potential
to contribute to significant cumulative hydrology (surface water runoff), water quality, air
quality, noise, traffic, public service or public utility impacts. The project will not have any
significant cumulative considerable impacts.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no aspects of the project that will cause or
expose people to significant environmental effects. The development of the project as
proposed will not cause or have the potential to cause any adverse effects directly or indirectly
on human beings.
Page 82
4.0 REFERENCES
1. City of Rosemead General Plan, April 13, 2010
2. City of Rosemead Municipal Code
3. Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, Hampton Inn, Rosemead, California, Giroux
& Associates, November 1, 2016.
4. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development,
3520 Ivar Avenue, APN 5390-018-037, Rosemead, California, Cal Land
Engineering, Inc. dba Quartech Consultants, March 4, 2016.
5. Limited Phase I Environmental Site Assessment at Proposed Commercial
Development at 3520 Ivar Avenue, Rosemead California, Quartech Consultants,
October 5, 2016.
6. Hydrology Study/LID Plan for Hotel, 3520 Ivar Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770,
October 12, 2016.
7. Noise Impact Analysis, Hampton Inn, City of Rosemead, California, Giroux &
Associates, November 4, 2016.
8. Hampton Inn Traffic Impact Study, Rosemead, CA, Stantec, October 5, 2016.