PC - Item 3A - Exhibit D
Lawrence and Orange
Initial Study
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for:
City of Rosemead
Planning Division
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
Prepared by:
MIG, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110
Riverside, California 92507
December 2016
- This document is designed for double-sided printing -
Lawrence and Orange (13533) i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 – Purpose of CEQA .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 – Public Comments ................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 – Availability of Materials .......................................................................................................................... 3
2 Project Description ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 – Project Title ............................................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address .......................................................................................................... 5
2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................................... 5
2.4 – Project Location ..................................................................................................................................... 5
2.5 – Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ................................................................................................... 5
2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designation ...................................................................................................... 5
2.7 – Zoning District ........................................................................................................................................ 5
2.8 – Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.9 – Surrounding Land Uses ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.10 – Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................................ 7
2.11 – Required Approvals ............................................................................................................................... 8
2.12 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required ................................................................................ 8
3 Determination ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.1 – Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ......................................................................................... 21
3.2 – Determination ....................................................................................................................................... 21
4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 23
4.1 – Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 23
4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources ........................................................................................................ 26
4.3 – Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 28
4.4 – Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................... 33
4.5 – Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 36
4.6 – Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................ 41
4.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................ 44
4.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................... 49
4.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 53
4.10 – Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................................ 57
4.11 – Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................... 58
4.12 – Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 59
4.13 – Population and Housing ....................................................................................................................... 65
4.14 – Public Services .................................................................................................................................... 66
4.15 – Recreation ............................................................................................................................................ 68
4.16 – Transportation and Traffic .................................................................................................................... 69
4.17 – Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 72
4.18 – Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................................... 74
4.19 – Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................................................... 78
5 Mitigation Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 83
6 References ...................................................................................................................................................... 87
6.1 – List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................... 87
6.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted ................................................................................................. 87
6.3 – References ........................................................................................................................................... 88
Lawrence and Orange (13533) ii
Appendix
Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment
Appendix B Phase I Cultural Resources Technical Report
Appendix C Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix D Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix E Noise Study
Appendix F Traffic Impact Study
List of Tables
Table 1 Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Table 2 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status .................................................................................................................. 29
Table 3 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) ..................................................................................................... 30
Table 4 Project Daily Emissions (lbs/day) ............................................................................................................................... 30
Table 5 Two Acre Localized Significance Threshold Analysis ................................................................................................ 32
Table 6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ...................................................................................................................... 45
Table 7 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary ......................................................................................................................... 47
Table 8 Ambient Noise Levels ................................................................................................................................................ 61
Table 9 Construction Noise Impacts ....................................................................................................................................... 61
Table 10 Roadway Noise Levels ............................................................................................................................................ 63
Table 11 Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ........................................................................................................ 63
Table 12 Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold Criteria ................................................................................................... 64
Table 13 Construction Vibration Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 64
Table 14 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................................ 70
Table 15 Residential Street Capacity ...................................................................................................................................... 70
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Regional Context and Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................ 9
Exhibit 2 Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Exhibit 3 Perspective .............................................................................................................................................................. 12
Exhibit 4 Landscape Plan ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
Exhibit 5 Wall and Fence Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 17
Exhibit 6 Site Photos ............................................................................................................................................................... 19
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 1
1 Introduction
The City of Rosemead (Lead Agency) received applications for a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Review,
Tentative Tract Map, and Zone Variance by LaTerra Development, LLC. (Project Proponent) for the development of a 21-
unit residential development on a two-acre portion of the Don Bosco Technical Institute at the cul-de-sac of Orange Street in
the city of Rosemead. The approval of the application constitutes a project that is subject to review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1970 (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (14
California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et. seq.).
This Initial Study was prepared to assess the short-term, long-term, and cumulative environmental impacts that could result
from the proposed project.
This report was prepared to comply with CEQA Guidelines § 15063, which sets forth the required contents of an Initial
Study. These include:
§ A description of the project, including the location of the project (See Section 2);
§ Identification of the environmental setting (See Section 2.11);
§ Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other methods, provided that entries on the
checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries (See
Section 4);
§ Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any (See Section 4);
§ Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls
(See Section 4.10); and
§ The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study (See Section 5).
1.1 – Purpose of CEQA
CEQA § 21000 of the California Public Resources Code provides as follows:
The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
a) The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future is a matter of statewide
concern.
b) It is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect
of man.
c) There is a need to understand the relationship between the maintenance of high-quality ecological systems and the
general welfare of the people of the state, including their enjoyment of the natural resources of the state.
d) The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the government of the state take
immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all
coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached.
e) Every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment.
f) The interrelationship of policies and practices in the management of natural resources and waste disposal requires
systematic and concerted efforts by public and private interests to enhance environmental quality and to control
environmental pollution.
g) It is the intent of the Legislature that all agencies of the state government which regulate activities of private individuals,
corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities
so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying
living environment for every Californian.
The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of the state to:
Introduction
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 2
h) Develop and maintain a high-quality environment now and in the future, and take all action necessary to protect,
rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state.
i) Take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural,
scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise.
j) Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man's activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not
drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal
communities and examples of the major periods of California history.
k) Ensure that the long-term protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable
living environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.
l) Create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the social and
economic requirements of present and future generations.
m) Require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards and procedures necessary to protect environmental
quality.
n) Require governmental agencies at all levels to consider qualitative factors as well as economic and technical factors
and long-term benefits and costs, in addition to short-term benefits and costs and to consider alternatives to proposed
actions affecting the environment.
A concise statement of legislative policy, with respect to public agency consideration of projects for some form of approval,
is found in CEQA § 21002, quoted below:
The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as
proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the
significant environmental effects of such projects, and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist
public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives
or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects. The Legislature further
finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives
or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.
1.2 – Public Comments
Comments from all agencies and individuals are invited regarding the information contained in this Initial Study. Such
comments should explain any perceived deficiencies in the assessment of impacts, identify the information that is
purportedly lacking in the Initial Study or indicate where the information may be found. All comments on the Initial Study are
to be submitted to:
Lily T. Valenzuela, City Planner
City of Rosemead
Planning Division
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
626-569-2142
Following a 30-day period of circulation and review of the Initial Study, all comments will be considered by the City of
Rosemead prior to adoption.
Introduction
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 3
1.3 – Availability of Materials
All materials related to the preparation of this Initial Study are available for public review. To request an appointment to
review these materials, please contact:
Lily T. Valenzuela, City Planner
City of Rosemead
Planning Division
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
626-569-2142
Introduction
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 4
ð
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 5
2 Project Description
2.1 – Project Title
Lawrence and Orange
2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Rosemead
Planning Division
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
626-569-2142
2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number
Lily T. Valenzuela, City Planner
626-569-2142
2.4 – Project Location
The project site is located in the city of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California (See Exhibit 1, Regional Context and
Vicinity Map). The project site is bounded by residential use and Orange Street to the west and institutional uses to the
north, east, and south.
• Latitude 34° 02’ 29.06” North, Longitude 118° 05’ 21.01” West
• APN 5275-015-027 & -028
• 1151 San Gabriel Boulevard, Rosemead, California 91770
2.5 – Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
LaTerra Development, LLC
1880 Century Park East, Suite 714
Los Angeles, California 90067
2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designation
The project site is designated Public Facilities by the City of Rosemead General Plan Land Use Element. The Public
Facilities designation applies to land uses that are operated and maintained for public benefit including educational facilities,
parks, utilities, and buildings or areas that support government activities. This designation also includes quasi-public uses
such as private utilities easements, private schools, and institutional activities.
2.7 – Zoning District
The City of Rosemead’s Zoning Ordinance designates the project site as Planned Development (P-D). The P-D District is
intended to provide for residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional developments that are characterized by innovative
use and design concepts. This zone provides for a new development to offer amenities, quality, design excellence and other
similar benefits to the community and not be inhibited by strict numerical development standards.
Project Description
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 6
2.8 – Project Description
The proposed project is located on approximately two acres. The project site is a former sports field for Don Bosco
Technical Institute and does not contain any pavement or structures that will require demolition. The project includes the
construction of 21 two-story single family residential units and associated parking and landscaping (see Exhibit 2, Site Plan).
The project includes three plan types. Seven Plan 1 units will consist of three bedrooms and 2.5 baths in 1,706 square feet
at a maximum height of 26.5 feet. Seven Plan 2 units will consist of four bedrooms and three baths in 2,072 square feet at a
maximum height of 26 feet. Seven Plan 3 units will consist of four bedrooms and three baths in 2,352 square feet at a
maximum height of 27 feet. The project will provide 42 private garage parking spaces (two private garage spaces per unit),
12 private driveway spaces (Units 1 through 6 at the northern corner of the site will have private driveways that will
accommodate two cars each), and 11 open parking spaces for a total of 65 parking spaces.
Architecturally, the proposed units will be comprised primarily of stucco in shades of light gray or beige and concrete S-tile
roofs in brown. Windows will be framed with stucco trim in brown to provide contrast and visual interest. Each unit will have
sectional garage doors in varying shades of brown. Each unit will have decorative tile vents, decorative shutters, and limited
metal railings (see Exhibit 3, Perspective).
The project site is located at the eastern terminus of Orange Street. Vehicular access to the project site will be provided from
Orange Street. Internal circulation will be provided via proposed Private Drives A, B, and C.
Open Space and Landscaping
The project will consist of 11,556 square feet of public landscape area and 8,352 square feet of public hardscape area for a
total of 19,908 square feet of common open space for the development (see Exhibit 4, Landscape Plan). Public landscaping
along internal roadways and front yards include use of shrub areas, turf, and street trees. A pocket park at the southern
portion of the project site will include enhanced pedestrian paving, entry pilasters, open turf area, benches, a pergola, and
trees. In addition to the public open space provided, each unit will have a private back yard totaling approximately 18,287
square feet of private open space.
Lighting
The outdoor lighting concept is to provide levels of lighting sufficient to meet safety and orientation needs. Public area
lighting will be warm colored and unobtrusive. The proposed internal roadways will be lit by 14-foot high pole lights. The
pocket park area will be lit by 42-inch high bollard lights. Light sources will be high pressure sodium, metal halide, or LED.
Light sources will be concealed and directed so that light does not fall outside of the area being lit. Lighting will not be visible
from a public viewpoint off site.
Walls and Fencing
Walls and fences are proposed along the project perimeter and within the project to provide privacy and separation (see
Exhibit 5, Wall and Fence Plan). The existing slump block wall with fence located at the northern perimeter of the project site
will remain. A six-foot high slump block wall on a maximum three-foot high retaining wall is proposed at the eastern
perimeter of the site, a tubular steel fence is proposed at the southern perimeter of the site, and a six-foot high slump block
wall on a maximum one- to six-foot high retaining wall is proposed at the western perimeter of the project site. Privacy walls
separating public areas from private back yards will be provided via five- to six-foot high slump block walls. Five- to eight-
foot high vinyl privacy fences are proposed to separate private side yards from the road and between residences. Five- to
eight-foot high privacy fences on maximum 1.5- to five-foot high retaining walls will be provided between residences where
back yards are adjacent.
Project Phasing and Construction Scheduling
Based on default construction phasing information provided by the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod),
construction of the project will take approximately one year to complete. Construction is anticipated to require the import of
approximately 1,054 cubic yards of soil.
Project Description
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 7
Grading and Drainage
Accounting for soil expansion, shrinkage, and compaction, approximately 1,054 cubic yards of soil will be imported to the
site. The project site was formerly used as a sports field and is vacant. Stormwater will be collected via proposed on-site
catch basins located at the northwest, central and southeast portions of the project site. Stormwater will then be conveyed
via a proposed 18-inch storm drain to be constructed in a proposed private utility easement southeast beneath the adjacent
parking lot for St. Joseph’s Salesian Youth Renewal Retreat Center for connection to existing facilities at Arroyo Drive.
Utilities
The proposed project will connect to existing water, sanitary sewer, and gas facilities. Water service is provided by the San
Gabriel Valley Water Company. Proposed four-inch domestic water facilities will be constructed beneath the project site and
connect to existing facilities at Orange Street. Sewer service is provided by the City of Rosemead. The project proposes to
construct eight-inch sanitary sewer facilities beneath the project site to connect to existing facilities at Arroyo Drive to the
southeast via the proposed private utility easement.
Electricity will be provided by Southern California Edison and natural gas will be provided by the Gas Company. Utility
undergrounding will be required.
2.9 – Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is bounded by single family residential to the west and institutional uses to the north, east, and south.
Surrounding uses are summarized in Table 1 (Surrounding Land Uses).
Table 1
Surrounding Land Uses
Direction General Plan Designation Zoning District Existing Land Use
Project Site Public Facilities Planned Development (P-D) Vacant
North Public Facilities Planned Development (P-D) Evergreen Baptist Church
South Public Facilities Planned Development (P-D) St. Joseph’s Salesian Youth
Renewal Retreat Center
East Public Facilities Planned Development (P-D) Don Bosco Technical Institute
West Low Density Residential
Residential (0-9 du/ac) (H9)*
Single Family Residential (R-1)
Single Family Residence (R-1)* Single Family Residential
* Parcels to the west of project site located within unincorporated Los Angeles County
2.10 – Environmental Setting
The project is located on a former sport’s field in Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California. The project site is surrounded
by residential and institutional uses and the area is completely built-out and urbanized. Regularly maintained grass is
located on the site. The site is bound to the north, east, and south by institutional use and to the west by residential use and
Orange Street. State Route 60 is located approximately 0.25 miles to the south, Interstate 10 is located approximately two
miles to the north, Interstate 605 is located approximately 3.5 miles to the east, and Interstate 710 is located approximately
4.5 miles to the west of the project site. The project site is relatively flat with an elevation of approximately 326 feet above
mean sea level. See Exhibit 6 (Site Photos) for more details on the existing conditions of the project site.
• The site does not contain scenic resources.
• The site is not currently being used for agricultural purposes.
• On-site vegetation consists of regularly maintained turf and does not provide suitable habitat for any sensitive, or
special status species.
• There are no on-site water features indicative of potential riparian habitat or wetlands.
• The site does not contain any historic structures.
Project Description
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 8
2.11 – Required Approvals
The City of Rosemead is the only land use authority for this project requiring the following approvals:
• General Plan Amendment
• Planned Development Review
• Tentative Tract Map
• Zone Variance
2.12 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required
None
Project Description
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 9
Exhibit 1
Regional Context and Vicinity Map
Project Description
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 10
ð
Citizens Medical Plaza (13491) 11
Exhibit 2
Site Plan
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 12
ð
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 13
Exhibit 3
Perspective
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 14
ð
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 15
Exhibit 4
Landscape Plan
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 16
ð
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 17
Exhibit 5
Wall and Fence Plan
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 18
ð
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 19
Exhibit 6
Site Photos
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 20
ð
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 21
3 Determination
3.1 – Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
‘Potentially Significant Impact’ as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture Resources □ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Geology /Soils
□ Greenhouse Gas Emissions □ Hazards & Hazardous Materials □ Hydrology / Water Quality
□ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise
□ Population / Housing □ Public Services □ Recreation
□ Transportation/Traffic □ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities / Service Systems
□
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
3.2 – Determination
□
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
□
I find that the proposed project MAY have a ‘potentially significant impact’ or ‘potentially significant unless
mitigated’ impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
□
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Name: Lily T. Valenzuela, City Planner
Date
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 22
ð
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 23
4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
4.1 – Aesthetics
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? □ □ □
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
view from 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? □ □ □
a) No Impact. Scenic vistas can be impacted by development in two ways. First, a structure may be constructed that
blocks the view of a vista. Second, the vista itself may be altered (i.e., development on a scenic hillside). According to the
City of Rosemead General Plan EIR, the primary scenic vistas are of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the
Whittier Narrows Golf Course and the La Puente Hills to the south. The proposed project is located on a site formerly used
as a sports field, south of the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10) and north of the Pomona Freeway (SR-60), within a fully
urbanized area visually dominated by residential and institutional land uses and surface streets. This site is not considered
to be within or to comprise a portion of a scenic vista.1 As discussed in the General Plan EIR, new developments that are
greater in height than the existing built environment may impact views of the San Gabriel Mountains.2 The project is located
within a residential area that is comprised of one- and two-story residential structures and landscaping. The proposed two-
story single family units will be developed at a maximum height of 27 feet at their highest point. Because the proposed
development will not result in structures greater in height than currently exists in the vicinity, development of the proposed
project and accessory landscaping elements would have no effect on a scenic vista. As such, the proposed project would
result in no impact with respect to view of a scenic vista.
b) No Impact. The project is not adjacent to a designated state scenic highway or eligible state scenic highway as
identified on the California Scenic Highway Mapping System.3 According to the General Plan EIR, there are no state scenic
highways in Rosemead.4 The project site is located in a previously developed, urbanized area, and contains no trees, rock
outcroppings, or historically significant buildings (see Section 4.5 Cultural Resources) that would constitute a scenic
resource. Therefore, no impact to scenic resources visible from a state scenic highway will occur.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project could result in a significant impact if it resulted
in substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Degradation of visual
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 24
character or quality is defined by substantial changes to the existing site appearance through construction of structures
such that they are poorly designed or conflict with the site’s existing surroundings.
Construction of the proposed project would result in short-term impacts to the existing visual character and quality of the
area. Construction activities would require the use of equipment and storage of materials within the project site. However,
construction activities are temporary and would not result in any permanent visual impact.
The project site is a previous sports field that contains regularly maintained turf. Project construction would result in the
removal of all existing vegetation, which would result in a temporary change to the aesthetic environment. Construction of
the proposed development would alter the existing visual character of the site. The proposed project is similar in use as the
single family residential uses located to the west of the site. The immediate surroundings of the project site are currently
occupied by residential and institutional uses. Surrounding residential buildings are generally one to two stories in height
and the institutional uses consist of the Evergreen Baptist Church to the north, the Don Bosco Technical Institute to the
east, and the St. Joseph’s Salesian Youth Renewal Retreat Center to the south. The surrounding area is not visually
distinct and does not portray a particular architectural theme or aesthetic.
Upon project completion, the proposed project would consist of 21 two-story single family residential structures. Access to
the site will be provided via Orange Street. The building heights will vary from 26 feet to 27 feet at their highest points from
ground level, consistent with Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.12.030 which requires that no building within the R-1
Residential designation exceed two stories and 30 feet. The project is located within the Planned Development (P-D) zone,
which according to Section 17.24.030, does not have a height restriction. The building would have a contemporary design,
with primarily stucco finishes. The finish would be stucco with articulation in the form of differential wall depths and
windows. With a modern architectural theme to include metal railings, window shutters, contrasting window trim, and
smooth stucco finish on the exterior walls, the project would improve the visual character and quality of this site and reflect
an improvement to its surroundings.
Once constructed, the proposed project would represent a new urban feature within the primarily residential and
institutional area. Because of the residential developments in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the addition of the
proposed project will provide a modern architectural aesthetic in an area that is older in character and would not conflict
with the existing character, but enhance it. With specified design features included, the project will have less than significant
impacts on the visual character of the site and the surroundings. In addition to specified design features, the following
General Plan policy will ensure that impacts to the visual character of the area will not occur:
Land Use Element Policy
1.8 Require that new single-family units utilize detailed architectural articulations to promote the visual character of
neighborhoods and comply with adopted single family design guidelines
Resource Management Element Policies
2.3 Require new developments to incorporate creative and effective landscaping into the overall site plan of proposed
projects.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely impact night-time views
by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars. Glare can be caused from unshielded or misdirected lighting sources.
Reflective surfaces (i.e., polished metal) can also cause glare. Impacts associated with glare range from simple nuisance to
potentially dangerous situations (i.e., if glare is directed into the eyes of motorists).
There are lighting sources adjacent to this site, including free-standing street lights, light fixtures on buildings, and pole-
mounted lights. The proposed project includes exterior street lighting and interior lighting. Light spillover and glare will be
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 25
avoided by requiring lights to be designed to prevent the light from shining directly onto surrounding property per the
requirements of Municipal Code Section 17.88.020. Compliance with the Municipal Code standards for lighting will ensure
that lighting and glare impacts are less than significant.
Sources of daytime glare are typically concentrated in commercial areas and are often associated with retail uses. Glare
results from development and associated parking areas that contain reflective materials such as hi-efficiency window glass,
highly polished surfaces, and expanses of pavement. The proposed project would have stucco finishes and wood window
shutters, which are not surfaces that cause glare. Glass windows and limited metal accents are proposed to create visual
interest and represents a minor percentage of the square footage of the homes. Given the minimal use of glare-inducing
materials in the design of the proposed building, reflective glare impacts would be less than significant.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 26
4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer
to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether
impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest
carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would
the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
□ □ □
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104 (g))?
□ □ □
d) Result in loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
□ □ □
a) No Impact. The proposed project will be located in a fully developed, urbanized area that does not contain agriculture
or forest uses. The Important Farmland in California (2010) prepared by the Department of Conservation does not identify
the project site as being Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.5 The City of Rosemead is
located in an area that is not mapped, indicating that there is no land considered as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City. In addition, the Rosemead General Plan does not identify any areas for
agriculture use. Therefore, there will be no conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide
Importance to a non-agricultural use as a result of this project. No impact will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 27
b) No Impact. No Williamson Act contracts are active for the project site.6 In addition, the project site is zoned Planned
Development, which does not permit agricultural uses. Therefore, there will be no conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact will occur.
c) No Impact. Public Resources Code § 12220(g) identifies forest land as land that can support 10-percent native tree
cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest
resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. The
project site and surrounding properties are not currently being managed or used for forest land as identified in Public
Resources Code § 12220(g). The project site has already been disturbed and used as a sports field. Therefore,
development of this project will have no impact to any timberland zoning.
d) No Impact. The project site is disturbed land with limited non-native vegetation; thus, there will be no loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use as a result of this project. No impact will occur.
e) No Impact. The project site is a vacant site within an urban environment. The project is surrounded by residential and
institutional uses. None of the surrounding sites contain existing forest uses. Development of this project will not change the
existing environment in a manner that will result in the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. No impact will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 28
4.3 – 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:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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? □ □ □
a) No Impact. A significant impact could occur if the proposed project conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the
South Coast Air Basin 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. Conflicts and obstructions that hinder implementation of the
AQMP can delay efforts to meet attainment deadlines for criteria pollutants and maintaining existing compliance with
applicable air quality standards. Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, consistency with the South Coast Air Basin 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is affirmed when
a project (1) does not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation and (2)
is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP.7 Consistency review is presented below:
(1) The project would result in short-term construction and long-term pollutant emissions that are less than the CEQA
significance emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD, as demonstrated herein; therefore, the project would not
result in an increase in the frequency or severity of any air quality standards violation and would not cause a new air quality
standard violation.
(2) The CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that consistency with AQMP growth assumptions must be analyzed for new or
amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significant projects. Significant projects include airports, electrical
generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites,
and off-shore drilling facilities. This project includes a General Plan Amendment and therefore requires consistency analysis
with the AQMP.
According to the California Department of Finance, the City of Rosemead had a population of 55,231 as of January 2016.8
The Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 29
Strategy (RTP/SCS) projects an estimated population of 60,800 for Rosemead by the year 2040, an increase of 5,569
residents. The proposed project will result in the addition of 21 dwelling units, resulting in an increase of 79 residents
according to an average household size of 3.74 residents.9 This increase is within the growth assumptions estimated by
SCAG and thus would be consistent with regional growth projections. SCAQMD utilizes SCAG growth projections in
development of the AQMP.
Based on the consistency analysis presented above, the proposed project will not conflict with the AQMP; no impact will
occur.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. A project may have a significant impact if project-related emissions would exceed
federal, state, or regional standards or thresholds, or if project-related emissions would substantially contribute to existing or
project air quality violations. The proposed Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin, where efforts to attain state
and federal air quality standards are governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Both the
state of California (state) and the federal government have established health-based ambient air quality standards (AAQS)
for seven air pollutants (known as ‘criteria pollutants’). These pollutants include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), inhalable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), fine particulate
matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The state has also established AAQS for additional
pollutants. The AAQS are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace within a reasonable margin of safety.
Where the state and federal standards differ, California AAQS are more stringent than the national AAQS.
Air pollution levels are measured at monitoring stations located throughout the air basin. Areas that are in nonattainment
with respect to federal or state AAQS are required to prepare plans and implement measures that will bring the region into
attainment. Table 2 (South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status) summarizes the attainment status in the project area for the
criteria pollutants. Discussion of potential impacts related to short-term construction impacts and long-term area source and
operational impacts are presented below.
Table 2
South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant Federal State
O3 (1-hr) -- Nonattainment
O3 (8-hr) Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Attainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Pb Nonattainment Attainment
VRP -- Unclassified
SO4 -- Attainment
H2S -- Unclassified
Sources: ARB
Construction Emissions
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2 was utilized to estimate emissions from the
proposed construction activities (see Appendix A, Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment). CalEEMod default
construction phase lengths were utilized. The proposed project will take approximately one year to complete.
Short-term criteria pollutant emissions will occur during site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and coating
activities. Emissions will occur from use of equipment, worker, vendor, and hauling trips, and disturbance of on-site soils
(fugitive dust). To determine if construction of the proposed project could result in a significant air quality impact, the
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 30
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) has been utilized. It is estimated that the project will take approximately
one year to complete. It is estimated that approximately 1,054 cubic yards of soil will be imported.
SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits paints to 50 grams per liter (g/L) of VOC and has been accounted for in the model. Particulate
matter emissions account for daily watering required by SCAQMD Rule 403 (three times per day for a 61 percent reduction
in fugitive dust). Based on the results of the model, and as shown in Table 3 (Maximum Daily Construction Emissions),
maximum daily emissions from the construction of the project will not exceed SCAQMD daily thresholds. Short-term
construction-related impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Is not required.
Table 3
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer 50.36 34.81 24.41 0.04 4.78 2.99
Winter 50.36 35.05 25.10 0.04 4.78 2.99
Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Operational Emissions
Long-term criteria air pollutant emissions will result from the operation of the proposed project. Long-term emissions are
categorized as area source emissions, energy demand emissions, and operational emissions. Operational emissions will
result from automobile and other vehicle sources associated with daily trips to and from the project site. The California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was utilized to estimate mobile source emissions. Trip generation is based on the
project traffic study prepared by Kunzman Associates.10 Area source emissions are the combination of many small emission
sources that include use of outdoor landscape maintenance equipment, use of consumer products such as cleaning
products, and periodic repainting of the project. Energy demand emissions result from use of electricity and natural gas.
Project area, energy, and mobile source emissions are included in Table 4 (Project Daily Emissions (lbs/day)). Based on the
results of the model, daily operational emissions associated with the proposed development will not exceed the thresholds
established by SCAQMD.
Table 4
Project Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Area Sources 2.84 0.10 7.66 0.02 0.86 0.86
Energy Demand 0.02 0.16 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01
Mobile Sources 0.70 2.02 8.19 0.02 1.57 0.44
Summer Total 3.56 2.29 15.92 0.04 2.44 1.31
Winter
Area Sources 2.84 0.10 7.66 0.02 0.86 0.86
Energy Demand 0.02 0.16 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01
Mobile Sources 0.72 2.13 8.03 0.02 1.57 0.44
Winter Total 3.58 2.39 15.76 0.04 2.44 1.31
SCAQMD Daily Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative short-term, construction-related emissions and long-term, operational
emissions from the project will not contribute considerably to any potential cumulative air quality impact because short-term
project and operational emissions will not exceed any SCAQMD daily threshold. As required of the proposed project, other
concurrent construction projects and operations in the region will be required to implement standard air quality regulations
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 31
and mitigation pursuant to state CEQA requirements, thus ensuring that air quality standards are not cumulatively exceeded.
Impacts will be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are those segments of the population that are most susceptible to
poor air quality such as children, the elderly, the sick, and athletes who perform outdoors. Land uses associated with
sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, outdoor athletic facilities, long-term health
care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Specific sensitive receptors within one-
quarter mile of the project site include the Don Bosco Technical Institute to the east, Potrero Heights Elementary to the
northwest, and residential uses in all directions of the project site. The proposed development will not generate toxic
pollutant emissions because the proposed uses do not produce such emissions. The proposed development, therefore,
would have no impact on sensitive receptors related to toxic pollutant emissions.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major
roadways, typically near intersections. CO hotspots have the potential to violate State and Federal CO standards at
intersections, even if the broader Basin is in attainment for Federal and State levels. The California Department of
Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (Protocol) screening procedures have been utilized to determine if
the proposed project could potentially result in a CO hotspot. Based on the recommendations of the Protocol, a screening
analysis should be performed for the proposed project to determine if a detailed analysis will be required. The California
Department of Transportation notes that because of the age of the assumptions used in the screening procedures and the
obsolete nature of the modeling tools utilized to develop the screening procedures in the Protocol, they are no longer
accepted. More recent screening procedures based on more current methodologies have been developed. The Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) developed a screening threshold in 2011 which states that any
project involving an intersection experiencing 31,600 vehicles per hour or more will require detailed analysis. In addition, the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District developed a screening threshold in 2010 which states that any project involving
an intersection experiencing 44,000 vehicles per hour would require detailed analysis. According to the traffic study, the
proposed project’s operations would not involve an intersection experiencing this level of traffic; therefore, the proposed
project passes the screening analysis and impacts are deemed less than significant. Based on the local analysis
procedures, the proposed project would not result in a CO hotspot.
Localized Significance Thresholds
As part of SCAQMD’s environmental justice program, attention has recently been focusing more on the localized effects of
air quality. Although the region may be in attainment for a particular criteria pollutant, localized emissions from construction
activities coupled with ambient pollutant levels can cause localized increases in criteria pollutant that exceed national and/or
state air quality standards.
Construction-related criteria pollutant emissions and potentially significant localized impacts were evaluated pursuant to the
SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. This methodology provides screening tables for one
through five-acre project scenarios, depending on the amount of site disturbance during a day. Maximum daily oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions will occur during construction of
the project, grading of the project site, and paving. It should be noted that the results summarized in Table 5 (Two Acre
Localized Significance Threshold Analysis) include application of SCAQMD Rule 403 and requires (the utilization of
applicable best management practices to minimize fugitive dust emissions. A 61 percent reduction in fugitive dust emissions
is assumed based on rule requirements. Table 5 summarizes on-site emissions as compared to the local thresholds
established for Source Receptor Area (SRA) 11 (South San Gabriel Valley). A 25-meter receptor distance was used to
reflect the proximity of nearby residential and commercial uses to the project site. No construction phase will exceed any
localized threshold as summarized in Table 5.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 32
Table 5
Two Acre Localized Significance Threshold Analysis
Construction Activity CO NOX PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 17.13 28.62 2.02 1.35
Grading 18.97 28.16 4.11 2.74
Building Construction 16.25 22.86 1.46 1.40
Paving 12.06 16.46 1.02 0.94
Architectural Coating 1.87 2.19 0.17 0.17
Maximum 18.97 28.62 4.11 2.74
Threshold 1,031 121 7 5
Potentially Significant? No No No No
e) No Impact. According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include
agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses
that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). Odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving the use of chemicals,
solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes, as well as sewage
treatment facilities and landfills. The proposed development does not include any of the above noted uses or process; no
impact will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 33
4.4 – Biological Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
□ □ □
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
□ □ □
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
□ □ □
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
□ □ □
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?
□ □ □
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 34
a) No Impact. The project site is vacant with regularly maintained turf. The project site is not identified as critical
habitat for threatened and endangered species.11 The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) maintains the
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), a list of special status plant and animal species. The city of Rosemead
is located within the El Monte Quadrangle. The CNDDB shows an occurrence of western pond turtle (Emys marmorata),
coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvilli), coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), and bank
swallow (Riparia riparia) in the project vicinity.12 The western pond turtle is aquatic and generally found in ponds,
marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches. The occurrence report states that the western pond turtle was observed
in the Alhambra Wash-Rio Hondo junction and the Whittier Narrows Dam County Park Recreational Area, approximately
0.8 miles east of the project site. The coast horned lizard frequents a wide variety of habitats, but is most common in
lowlands along sandy washes and scattered low bushes. It requires chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal bluff
scrub, coastal scrub, desert wash, pinon & juniper woodlands, riparian scrub, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill
grassland. Mapped occurrence areas are located approximately 0.8 miles northeast of the project site. Coastal California
gnatcatcher is typically found coastal sage scrub in arid washes, and on mesas and slopes. The occurrence report
states that mapped areas of occurrence include Whittier Narrows Recreational Area, approximately 0.5 miles south of
the project site. The bank swallow is a colonial nester and nests primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats west of
the desert. It requires vertical banks/cliffs with fine-textured/sandy soils near streams, rivers, lakes, and the ocean to dig
a nesting hole. The project site is flat, consists of regularly maintained turf, surrounded by existing development, and
there is no riparian habitat on or near the site.
As a previous sports field, regularly maintained turf is located on site and is not native habitat for any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. On-site vegetation is currently disturbed through on- and off-site
activities including maintenance, traffic, and the presence of humans and domestic animals, particularly cats.
Considering the highly developed and urbanized character of the surrounding area and the presence of on- and off-site
disturbances, designated species under federal or state law and other wildlife will not be disturbed. The proposed project
will, therefore, not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status
species in local or regional plans or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS).
While the project will not result in any substantial impacts to sensitive species or their habitat and the existing vegetation
on site is of low quality, the project site still may support nesting of some native bird species. Generally, all birds (as
listed) are protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty of 1918 and/or California Fish and Game Code §§ 3503,
3503.5, and 3513. If demolition occurs during the avian breeding season due to construction delays, CDFW
recommends that nest surveys be conducted and active nests avoided and provided with a minimum buffer as
determined by a biological monitor (CDFW generally recommends a minimum 300-foot nest avoidance buffer or 500 feet
for all active raptor nests) in order to be compliant with federal and/or state law.
In addition to federal and state regulations, the project is subject to CEQA filing fees upon filing of the Notice of
Determination (NOD) upon adoption of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The filing fee helps defray
the costs of managing and projecting California’s fish and wildlife resources, thus, payment of fees would help offset any
incremental effects on wildlife, including nesting birds and other resources. Based on the lack of habitat on the property,
the highly urbanized and developed character of the area, and activities that are incompatible with wildlife, no impacts to
candidate, sensitive, or special status species or their habitat will occur.
b-c) No Impact. The project site is vacant. The site has been substantially disturbed as a former sports field and contains turf
that is maintained regularly. According to the federal National Wetlands Inventory, the project site does not contain any
riparian habitat or wetlands and the proposed project would not disturb any offsite wetlands.13 There is no vegetation
or on-site water features indicative of potential wetlands. No impact will occur.
d) No Impact. The project site is vacant and surrounded to the north, south, east, and west by development, preventing
the use of the project site and surrounding area as a wildlife corridor. The project site contains turf that is maintained
regularly, in the context of a completely urbanized setting surrounded by residential and institutional use. There are no
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 35
substantial vegetated areas or waterbodies located onsite that could serve as habitat. The project site does not provide for
the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife. No impact will occur.
e) No Impact. The project site is vacant and contains turf that is maintained regularly. The City of Rosemead has an
adopted oak tree preservation ordinance (Municipal Code Section 17.104). This ordinance sets provisions to create favorable
conditions for the preservation and propagation of oak trees due to their historical, aesthetic, and ecological benefits. The
project site does not contain any oak trees. Therefore, development of the proposed project will not conflict with the City’s oak
tree preservation ordinance. No impact would occur.
f) No Impact. The project site is not within the planning area of any Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural
Community Conservation Plan area,14 or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan. No impact
will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 36
4.5 – Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 dedicated cemeteries? □ □ □
a) No Impact. MIG conducted a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (see Appendix B) for the project. Review of the
California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL), the California Register, the
National Register, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) listings determined that no known historical
resources were recorded within the Project site. In addition, no historical resources were identified during the pedestrian
survey. As such, the proposed project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and
impacts to historic resources are not anticipated. No impact will result.
b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located in an urbanized area that has
been previously disturbed by past 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. Records searches conducted as part of the
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment indicated that there were no previously recorded archaeological resources within
the project site and no historical resources were identified during the pedestrian survey. Despite previous disturbances of
the project area that may have displaced archaeological resources on the surface, it is possible that intact archaeological
resources exist at depth. As a result, Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-4 have been implemented to reduce potentially
significant impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources that may be accidentally encountered during project
implementation to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure C-1 requires that a qualified archaeologist conduct an
archaeological sensitivity training for construction personnel. Mitigation Measure C-2 requires that all ground-disturbing
activities be halted or diverted away from the find and that a buffer of at least 50 feet be established around the find until an
appropriate treatment plan is coordinated. Mitigation Measure C-3 requires that a qualified archaeological monitor be
present during all construction excavations into non-fill younger Pleistocene alluvial sediments. Mitigation Measure C-4
requires that the archaeological monitor prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-4, impacts will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
C-1 Conduct Archaeological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The Applicant 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
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 37
archaeology, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. The training
session will 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.
C-2 Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered.
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 should be contacted and consulted and Native
American construction monitoring should be initiated. The Applicant and 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.
C-3 Conduct Periodic Archeological Resources Spot Checks during grading and earth-moving activities in Younger
Alluvial Sediments. The Applicant 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
will be conducted at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that
construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological artifacts construction
monitoring for Archaeological Resources will be required. The Applicant 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.
C-4 Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. 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 Applicant, 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 Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located in an urbanized area that has
been previously disturbed by past 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. Results of the paleontological resources
records search through Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC) indicate that no vertebrate fossil
localities from the NHMLAC records have been previously recorded within the project area or within a one-mile radius.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 38
Moreover, no paleontological resources were identified by MIG during the pedestrian survey. However, there are two
previously recorded fossil localities (LACM 7701-7702 and LACM 6350-6361) located within a three-mile radius of the
project site and were discovered in the same Miocene Puente Formation that extends into the project area.
Further, the results of the literature review and the search at the NHMLAC indicates that the Study Area is underlain by
surficial deposits of older Quaternary Alluvium, derived primarily as alluvial fan deposits from the elevated terrain
immediately to the south. In the Montebello Hills immediately to the south of the proposed project area there are exposures
of the Pliocene Fernando Formation that probably occur at relatively shallow depth in the proposed project area. According
to the geologic mapping this may be a non-marine facies of the otherwise marine Fernando Formation are all from around
the Puente Hills Landfill east southeast of the proposed project area (McLeod 2016). These surface deposits are unlikely to
contain significant vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers, but are underlain by older sedimentary deposits at relatively
shallow depths ranging between 6-8 feet below the surface. Deeper excavations that extend down into older sedimentary
deposits, however, may well uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains. 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 (McLeod 2016). As a result, Mitigation Measure C-5 through C-8 have been implemented to
reduce potentially significant impacts to previously undiscovered paleontological resources and/or unique geological
features that may be accidentally encountered during project implementation to a less than significant level. Mitigation
Measure C-5 requires that a paleontological sensitivity training for construction personnel be conducted prior to
commencement of excavation activities. Mitigation Measure C-6 requires that a qualified paleontologist conduct periodic
paleontological spot checks to determine if excavations have extended into the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene
alluvial deposits and the presence of a paleontological monitor during all construction excavations into the Puente Formation
or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Mitigation Measure C-7 requires that ground-disturbing activities be halted or
diverted away from the vicinity and that a buffer of at least 50 feet be established if paleontological materials are
encountered until an appropriate treatment plan is coordinated. Mitigation Measure C-8 requires that a professional
paleontologist prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring efforts, methodology used, and the description of
fossils collected and their significance. With implementation of Mitigation Measures C-5 through C-8, impacts to
paleontological resources will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
C-5 Conduct Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The Applicant shall retain a professional
paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall 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 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.
C-6 Conduct Periodic Paleontological Spot Checks during grading and earth-moving activities. The Applicant 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 Applicant 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
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 39
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.
C-7 Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Paleontological Resources Are Encountered.
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 Applicant and 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 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.
C-8 Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. 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 Applicant, 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 Impact. No known human remains have been identified from the California Historical Resources
Information System-South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC) database within a half-mile radius of the
project site. No human remains were identified during the site survey of the project site. Because the project site has been
disturbed, no human remains or cemeteries are anticipated to be disturbed by the proposed project. Any buried human
remains would have been uncovered, collected, and/or destroyed at that time of initial development of the site. However,
these findings do not preclude the existence of previously unknown human remains located below the ground surface, which
may be encountered during construction excavations 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, mitigation measure C-9 has been implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously unknown
human remains that may be unexpectedly discovered during project implementation to a less than significant level.
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
C-9 Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Notify County Coroner If Human Remains Are Encountered. If human
remains are unearthed during implementation of the Proposed Project, the City of Rosemead and the Applicant
shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The City of Rosemead and the Applicant 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). After the
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 40
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.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 41
4.6 – Geology and Soils
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
(1997), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
□ □ □
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
□ □ □
a.i) Less Than Significant Impact. Although the project site is located in seismically active Southern California, the site is
not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.15 One active fault has been mapped within the city, the Alhambra
Wash fault, which traverses the southern portion of the City on a northwest to southeast trend, approximately 0.5 miles north
of the project site.16 No active faults have been identified at the ground surface on the project site. In addition, according to
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 42
the geotechnical engineering investigation, there are no known active faults crossing the project site (Appendix C). Impacts
will be less than significant.
a.ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be subject to ground shaking impacts should a major
earthquake in the area occur in the future. Potential impacts include injury or loss of life and property damage.
The project site is subject to strong seismic ground shaking, as are virtually all properties in Southern California. The
proposed building is subject to the seismic design criteria of the California Building Code (CBC). The 2013 California
Building Code (California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Volume 2) contains seismic safety
provisions with the aim of preventing building collapse during a design earthquake, so that occupants would be able to
evacuate after the earthquake. A design earthquake is one with a two percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, or an
average return period of 2,475 years. Adherence to these requirements will reduce the potential of the building from
collapsing during an earthquake, thereby minimizing injury and loss of life. Although structures may be damaged during
earthquakes, adherence to seismic design requirements will minimize damage to property within the structure because the
structure is designed not to collapse. The CBC is intended to provide minimum requirements to prevent major structural
failure and loss of life. Adherence to existing regulations will reduce the risk of loss, injury, and death; impacts due to strong
ground shaking will be less than significant. In addition to CBC requirements, the General Plan includes the following policy
related to earthquake and fault hazards:
Public Safety Element Policy
1.2 Earthquake and Fault Hazards
a) Minimize the exposure of people and property to primary and secondary earthquake-related hazards, while allowing
properly designed projects to be develop din appropriate locations.
b) Assure that all aspects of the earthquake, fault rupture, liquefaction, and related seismic hazard evaluation process
(planning, investigation, analysis, reporting, review, construction, and operations) for new development and
redevelopment are conducted, and independently reviewed, by qualified professionals.
a.iii) Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs when soil undergoes transformation from a
solid state to a liquefied condition due to the effects of increased pore-water pressure. This typically occurs where
susceptible soils (particularly the medium sand to silt range) are located over a high groundwater table. Affected soils lose
all strength during liquefaction and foundation failure can occur.
According to the geotechnical investigation and the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, the project
site is not subject to liquefaction.17 This indicates that the area has not been subject to historic occurrence of liquefaction, or
local geological, geotechnical, and groundwater conditions do not indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement
such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code § 2693(c) would be required. The site is underlain by older
alluvium consisting of predominately stiff clayey soils. Relatively loose silty and/or sandy soils are not anticipated at the site.
The site exhibits a very low seismic settlement potential and liquefaction would not be significant to the proposed
development. Impacts due to seismically induced liquefaction will be less than significant.
a.iv) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, the
project site is located in an urbanized area that is relatively flat and there is no potential for landslides on the project site.18
Impacts to the proposed project site will be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Topsoil is used to cover surface areas for the establishment and maintenance of
vegetation due to its high concentrations of organic matter and microorganisms. Little native topsoil is likely to occur on the
site because it is a former sports field with regularly maintained turf. The project has the potential to expose surficial soils to
wind and water erosion during construction activities. Wind erosion will be minimized through soil stabilization measures
required by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), such as daily watering.
Water erosion will be prevented through the City’s standard erosion control practices (Municipal Code Section 13.16.030)
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 43
required pursuant to the California Building Code and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), such
as silt fencing or sandbags. Following project construction, the site would be covered completely by paving, structures, and
landscaping. Impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to liquefaction and landslides are discussed above in Sections 4.6.a
and 4.6.b. Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The
downslope movement is due to gravity and earthquake shaking combined. Such movement can occur on slope gradients of
as little as one degree. Lateral spreading typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures.
Lateral spreading of the ground surface during a seismic activity usually occurs along the weak shear zones within a
liquefiable soil layer and has been observed to generally take place toward a free face (i.e. retaining wall, slope, or channel)
and to lesser extent on ground surfaces with a very gentle slope. Due to the absence of any channel within or near the
subject site, and the subsurface soil conditions that are not conducive to liquefaction, the potential for lateral spread
occurring on the project site is considered to be negligible. According to the geotechnical investigation, on-site materials will
result in moderate shrinkage and subsidence. Design of site grading has taken potential shrinkage into account and will
result in net fill of 1,054 cubic yards of soil.
The project is required to be constructed in accordance with the CBC. The CBC includes a requirement that any City-
approved recommendations contained in the soils report (Appendix C) be made conditions of the building permit.
Compliance with existing CBC regulations would limit hazard impacts arising from unstable soils to less than significant
levels.
d) No Impact. The CBC requires special design considerations for foundations of structures built on soils with expansion
indices greater than 20. According to the geotechnical investigation, the project site has low potential for expansion. The
project is required to be constructed in accordance with the CBC. The CBC includes a requirement that any City-approved
recommendations contained in the soils report be made conditions of the building permit. Compliance with existing CBC
regulations would limit hazard impacts arising from unstable soils to less than significant levels. Design of site grading has
taken potential expansion into account and will result in net fill of 1,054 cubic yards of soil. No impact will occur.
e) No Impact. The project proposes to connect to the existing municipal sewer system under Arroyo Drive. The project will
connect to this system and will not require use of septic tanks. No impact will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 44
4.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment? □ □ □
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
□ □ □
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Climate change is the distinct change in measures of climate for a long period of time.19
Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gas emissions all over the world. Natural
changes in climate can be caused by indirect processes such as changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun or direct
changes within the climate system itself (e.g., changes in ocean circulation). Human activities can affect the atmosphere
through emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and changes to the planet’s surface. Human activities that produce GHGs
are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation);
methane from landfill wastes and raising livestock, deforestation activities; and some agricultural practices.
Greenhouse gases differ from other emissions in that they contribute to the “greenhouse effect.” The greenhouse effect is a
natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the Sun hits the Earth’s
surface and warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases
and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping back into space and re-radiate it in all
directions. This process is essential to supporting life on Earth because it warms the planet by approximately 60°
Fahrenheit. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago)
are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, thereby contributing to
an average increase in the Earth’s temperature. Greenhouse gases occur naturally and from human activities. Greenhouse
gases produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since 1750, it is estimated that the concentrations of carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased over 36 percent, 148 percent, and 18 percent,
respectively, primarily due to human activity. Emissions of greenhouse gases affect the atmosphere directly by changing its
chemical composition while changes to the land surface indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way the Earth
absorbs gases from the atmosphere.
Operation emissions associated with the proposed project would include GHG emissions from mobile sources
(transportation), energy, water use and treatment, and waste disposal. GHG emissions from electricity use are indirect GHG
emissions from the energy (purchased energy) that is produced offsite. Construction activities are short term and cease to
emit greenhouse gases upon completion, unlike operational emissions that are continuous year after year until operation of
the use ceases. Because of this difference, SCAQMD recommends amortizing construction emissions over a 30-year
operational lifetime. This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational emissions in order
to generate a precise project-based GHG inventory.
GHG emissions for the project were quantified utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version
2013.2.2 to determine if the project could have a cumulatively considerable impact related to greenhouse gas emissions
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 45
(see Appendix A, Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment), and summarized in Table 6 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Inventory). The emissions inventory accounts for GHG emissions from construction activities, operational activities, and
existing emissions.
Table 6
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Source GHG Emissions (MT/YR)
CO2 CH4 N2O TOTAL*
Construction
Total 280.02 0.05 0.00 281.14
30-Year Amortization 9.33 0.00 0.00 9.37
Operational
Total 380.88 0.36 0.00 389.17
Project Construction + Operational Total 390.21 0.36 0.00 398.54
Total Emissions 398.54
Proposed SCAQMD Screening Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Screening Threshold? No
Source: MIG 2016
* MTCO2E/YR
Note: Slight variations may occur due to rounding. Construction emissions amortized over 30 years.
A numerical threshold for determining the significance of greenhouse gas emissions in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin)
has not officially been adopted by the SCAQMD. As an interim threshold based on guidance provided in the CAPCOA
CEQA and Climate Change white paper, a non-zero threshold based on Approach 2 of the handbook will be used.20
Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) establishes a numerical threshold based on capture of
approximately 90 percent of emissions from future development. The latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this
method is 3,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E) per year for residential and commercial projects.21 This
threshold is based on the review of 711 CEQA projects.
Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed project will not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2E threshold with
implementation of existing standards and regulations; therefore, impacts will be less than significant.
b) No Impact. ARB’s Scoping Plan identifies strategies to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions in support of
AB32. Many of the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan are not applicable at the project level, such as long-term
technological improvements to reduce emissions from vehicles. Some measures are applicable and supported by the
project, such as energy efficiency. Finally, while some measures are not directly applicable, the project will not conflict with
their implementation. Reduction measures are grouped into 18 action categories, as follows:
1. California Cap-and-Trade Program Linked to Western Climate Initiative Partner Jurisdictions. Implement a
broad-based California cap-and-trade program to provide a firm limit on emissions. Link the California cap–and-
trade program with other Western Climate Initiative Partner programs to create a regional market system to achieve
greater environmental and economic benefits for California.22 Ensure California’s program meets all applicable AB
32 requirements for market-based mechanisms.
2. California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards. Implement adopted Pavley standards and planned
second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology
programs with long-term climate change goals.
3. Energy Efficiency. Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, and pursue additional efficiency
efforts including new technologies, and new policy and implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable
investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California (including both investor-owned and
publicly owned utilities).
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 46
4. Renewables Portfolio Standards. Achieve 33 percent renewable energy mix statewide.
5. Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Develop and adopt the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
6. Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets. Develop regional greenhouse gas emissions
reduction targets for passenger vehicles.
7. Vehicle Efficiency Measures. Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures.
8. Goods Movement. Implement adopted regulations for the use of shore power for ships at berth. Improve efficiency
in goods movement activities.
9. Million Solar Roofs Program. Install 3,000 megawatts of solar-electric capacity under California’s existing solar
programs.
10. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Adopt medium- (MD) and heavy-duty (HD) vehicle efficiencies. Aerodynamic
efficiency measures for HD trucks pulling trailers 53-feet or longer that include improvements in trailer
aerodynamics and use of rolling resistance tires were adopted in 2008 and went into effect in 2010.23 Future, yet to
be determined improvements, includes hybridization of MD and HD trucks.
11. Industrial Emissions. Require assessment of large industrial sources to determine whether individual sources
within a facility can cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide other pollution reduction co-
benefits. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction and gas
transmission. Adopt and implement regulations to control fugitive methane emissions and reduce flaring at
refineries.
12. High Speed Rail. Support implementation of a high speed rail system.
13. Green Building Strategy. Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s
new and existing inventory of buildings.
14. High Global Warming Potential Gases. Adopt measures to reduce high warming global potential gases.
15. Recycling and Waste. Reduce methane emissions at landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting and other
beneficial uses of organic materials, and mandate commercial recycling. Move toward zero-waste.
16. Sustainable Forests. Preserve forest sequestration and encourage the use of forest biomass for sustainable
energy generation. The 2020 target for carbon sequestration is 5 million MTCO2E/YR.
17. Water. Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water.
18. Agriculture. In the near-term, encourage investment in manure digesters and at the five-year Scoping Plan update
determine if the program should be made mandatory by 2020.
Table 7 (Scoping Plan Consistency Summary) summarizes the project’s consistency with the State Scoping Plan. As
summarized, the project will not conflict with any of the provisions of the Scoping Plan and in fact supports four of the action
categories through energy efficiency, water conservation, recycling, and landscaping.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 47
Table 7
Scoping Plan Consistency Summary
Action Supporting
Measures Consistency
Cap-and-Trade Program --
Not Applicable. These programs involve capping
emissions from electricity generation, industrial facilities,
and broad scoped fuels. Caps do not affect commercial
projects.
Light-Duty Vehicle Standards T-1 Not Applicable. This is a statewide measure
establishing vehicle emissions standards.
Energy Efficiency
E-1 Consistent. The project will include a variety of building,
water, and solid waste efficiencies consistent with 2013
CALGREEN requirements.
E-2
CR-1
CR-2
Renewables Portfolio Standard E-3 Not Applicable. Establishes the minimum statewide
renewable energy mix.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard T-2 Not Applicable. Establishes reduced carbon intensity of
transportation fuels.
Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse
Gas Targets T-3
Not Applicable. The project will not result in substantial
emissions of greenhouse gas emissions; therefore,
transportation related emissions reductions are not
required.
Vehicle Efficiency Measures T-4
Not Applicable. Identifies measures such as minimum
tire-fuel efficiency, lower friction oil, and reduction in air
conditioning use.
Goods Movement
T-5 Not applicable. Identifies measures to improve goods
movement efficiencies such as advanced combustion
strategies, friction reduction, waste heat recovery, and
electrification of accessories. T-6
Million Solar Roofs Program E-4 Not Applicable. Sets goal for use of solar systems
throughout the state.
Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicles
T-7
Not applicable. Medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks
and trailers will not operate from the proposed project.
T-8
Industrial Emissions
I-1
Not Applicable. These measures are applicable to large
industrial facilities (> 500,000 MTCOE2/YR) and other
intensive uses such as refineries.
I-2
I-3
I-4
I-5
High Speed Rail T-9 Not Applicable. Supports increased mobility choice.
Green Building Strategy GB-1
Consistent. The project will include a variety of building,
water, and solid waste efficiencies consistent with 2013
CALGREEN requirements.
High Global Warming Potential Gases H-1 Not Applicable. The proposed project is not a
substantial source of high GWP emissions and will H-2
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 48
H-3 comply with any future changes in air conditioning, fire
protection suppressant, and other requirements. H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7
Recycling and Waste
RW-1 Consistent. The project will be required to recycle a
minimum of 50 percent from construction activities and
operations per state requirements.
RW-2
RW-3
Sustainable Forests F-1 Not Applicable. The project site is not forested and the
project will not result in the loss of any forest land.
Water
W-1
Consistent. The project will include use of low-flow
fixtures and efficient landscaping per state requirements.
W-2
W-3
W-4
W-5
W-6
Agriculture A-1 Not Applicable. The project is not an agricultural use.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 49
4.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
□ □ □
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
□ □ □
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
□ □ □
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
□ □ □
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
□ □ □
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
□ □ □
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
□ □ □
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 50
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
□ □ □
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project could result in a significant hazard to the public if the project
includes the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or places housing near a facility which routinely
transports, uses, or disposes of hazardous materials. The proposed project is located within a residential and institutional
area within the City and is surrounded by residential and institutional uses. The proposed project would not place housing
near any hazardous materials facilities. The routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials is primarily associated
with industrial uses which require such materials for manufacturing operations or produce hazardous wastes as by-products
of production applications. The proposed project does not propose or facilitate any activity involving significant use, routine
transport, or disposal of hazardous substances.
Construction of the proposed project will require the use and transport of hazardous materials such as asphalt, paints, and
other solvents. Construction activities could also produce hazardous wastes associated with the use of such products.
Construction of the proposed development requires ordinary construction activities and will not require a substantial or
uncommon amount of hazardous materials to complete. All hazardous materials are required to be utilized and transported
in accordance with their labeling pursuant to federal and state law. Routine construction practices include good
housekeeping measures to prevent/contain/clean-up spills and contamination from fuels, solvents, concrete wastes and
other waste materials. Impacts will be less than significant.
With regard to project operation, widely used hazardous materials common at residential uses include paints and other
solvents, cleaners, and pesticides. The remnants of these and other products are disposed of as household hazardous
waste (HHW) that includes used dead batteries, electronic wastes, and other wastes that are prohibited or discouraged from
being disposed of at local landfills. Use of common household hazardous materials and their disposal does not present a
substantial health risk to the community. Impacts associated with the routine transport, use of hazardous materials or wastes
will be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Partner Engineering and
Science, Inc. (Appendix D) dated June 22, 2015. No recognized environmental condition (REC), controlled recognized
environmental condition (CREC), or historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) were identified by Partner during
the course of the site assessment. The following environmental issues, referring to environmental concerns that do not
qualify as RECs were identified.
• Based on the regulatory database report and historical sources reviewed, a gasoline underground storage tank
(UST) was situated on the Don Bosco School parent parcel property, approximately 200 feet east and down-
gradient of the project site. According to information obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s
(RWQCB’s) GeoTracker website, evidence of a release was discovered in 1993 during tank removal operations.
Remediation was conducted through removal of free product as well as groundwater monitoring up to at least 2008.
The site is listed as being eligible for low-threat case closure as of May 2014. According to a September 4, 2014
letter of correspondence, the RWQCB indicated that final closure/no further action letter will be issued upon receipt
of a final well abandonment report. According to an October 21, 2009 Groundwater Well Monitoring Report,
groundwater samples were analyzed. All constituents were reported as non-detect (ND). The report also reported
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 51
that 14 previous sampling events dating back to March 2003 also revealed measured constituents to be at ND
levels. Groundwater flow is reported to the north-northeast. Based on the most recent groundwater monitoring data,
the delineated contamination plume and relative distance from the project site, and the measured direction of
groundwater flow, the release from a parent parcel is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern
for the project site.
• The off-site property, identified as Chevron Station No. 94784 at 1761 Paramount Boulevard, is located
approximately 670 feet to the west of the project site, and situated hydrologically cross-gradient. This site reported
a release of gasoline in 1987, which reportedly impacted soil and groundwater. The release occurred as a result of
a release from an underground storage tank (UST) and was reported to the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works (LADPW) in 1987 and to the current lead agency, the RWQCB in 2002. The responsible party is
Chevron Inc. According to information reviewed on the RWQCB’s online GeoTracker database, an off-site
groundwater monitoring well (MW-4) was installed approximately 100 feet east of this site (approximately 500 feet
west of the project site) to characterize down-gradient groundwater conditions. Soil sampling from the installation of
the well reported benzene and petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline at 30 feet below ground surface (bgs).
Samples collected above and below 30 bgs were ND for all constituents of concern. Groundwater is noted to flow
to the northeast, cross-gradient to the project site. Based on the relative distance from the project site, the direction
of groundwater flow, the identification of a responsible party, and the regulatory oversight, this off-site release is not
expected to represent a significant environmental concern in connection with the project site.
The Phase I ESA reveals no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the project site. Based on
the conclusions of the Phase I ESA, no further investigation of the project site has been recommended. Impacts will be less
than significant.
c) No Impact. There are two schools located within one-quarter mile of the project site. Potrero Heights Elementary
School is located approximately 0.25 miles to the northwest of the project site. The project site is currently part of the Don
Bosco Technical Institute, located to the east of the project site. Operation of the proposed project will not generate any
hazardous emissions and storage, handling, production or disposal of acutely hazardous materials is not required or
proposed for any aspect of this project. No impact will occur.
d) No Impact. The proposed project is not located on a site listed on the state Cortese List, a compilation of various sites
throughout the state that have been compromised due to soil or groundwater contamination from past uses. 24
Based upon review of the Cortese List, the project site is not:
§ listed as a hazardous waste and substance site by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),25
§ listed as a leaking underground storage tank (LUFT) site by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB),26
§ listed as a hazardous solid waste disposal site by the SWRCB,27
§ currently subject to a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) as issued by the
SWRCB,28 or
§ developed with a hazardous waste facility subject to corrective action by the DTSC.29
e-f) No Impact. There are no public airports, private airstrips, or heliports within two miles of the project site.30 No impact
related to airport operations will occur.
g) Less Than Significant Impact. Per state Fire and Building Codes, sufficient space will have to be provided around the
buildings for emergency personnel and equipment access and emergency evacuation. All project elements, including
landscaping, would be sited with sufficient clearance from existing and proposed structures so as not to interfere with
emergency access to and evacuation from the facility. The project is required to comply with the California Fire Code as
adopted by the Rosemead Municipal Code (Section 8.24.010). The site plan includes one ingress/egress access point via a
driveway on Orange Street at the northwestern corner of the project site.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 52
The project driveway will allow emergency access and evacuation from the site, and would be constructed to California Fire
Code specifications. The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or evacuation plan because no permanent public street or lane closures are proposed. Construction work in
the street associated with the buildings would be limited to lateral utility connections would be limited to nominal potential
traffic diversion. Project impacts will be less than significant.
h) No Impact. The Project site is not located within a fire hazard zone, as identified on the latest Fire Hazard Severity
Zone (FHSZ) maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE).31 There are no
wildland conditions in the urbanized area where the project site is located. No impact would occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 53
4.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? □ □ □
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
□ □ □
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or 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
stormwater 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? □ □ □
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 54
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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? □ □ □
a) Less Than Significant Impact. A project normally would have an impact on surface water quality if discharges
associated with the project would create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in Water Code § 13050, or that
cause regulatory standards to be violated as defined in the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) stormwater permit or Water Quality Control Plan for the receiving water body. For the purpose of this specific
issue, a significant impact could occur if the project would discharge water that does not meet the quality standards of the
agencies which regulate surface water quality and water discharge into stormwater drainage systems. Significant impacts
could also occur if the project does not comply with all applicable regulations with regard to surface water quality as
governed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These regulations include preparation of a Standard
Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to reduce potential post-construction water quality impacts (Rosemead
Municipal Code Section 13.16.030).
Construction Impacts
Three general sources of potential short-term, construction-related stormwater pollution associated with the proposed
project include: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance
and operation of construction equipment; and 3) earth-moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil
erosion via storm runoff or mechanical equipment. All new development projects equal to one acre or more are subject to
Los Angeles County NPDES Permit No. CAS004001. The proposed project would disturb approximately two acres of land
and therefore will be subject to NPDES permit requirements during construction activities. In addition, pursuant to Municipal
Code Section 13.16.030, all construction projects equal to or greater than one acre and less than five acres shall prepare
and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). All construction projects must apply Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that include drainage controls such as detention ponds, dikes, filter berms, and downdrains to prevent
runoff, and utilizing plastic covering to prevent erosion. Compliance with City discharge requirements would ensure that the
construction of the proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements, or otherwise
substantially degrade water quality. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations.
Operational Impacts
Proposed construction will increase impervious areas as the site currently does not consist of any impervious surfaces. The
approximately two-acre site, consisting of turf, will be replaced with 21 single family residential structures and associated
paving and landscaping. Runoff from the developed site will result in increased potential water contamination from urban
pollutants that are commonly found in surface parking lots, ornamental landscape planters and from atmospheric buildup on
rooftops. The proposed project will be subject to post-construction BMPs to address increases in impervious surfaces,
methods to decrease incremental increases in off-site stormwater flows, and methods for decreasing pollutant loading in off-
site discharges. A key design criterion is to treat the first ¾-inch rainstorm flows, since the first rains typically carry the most
concentrated levels of pollution that have built up since the last storm. Common post-construction BMPs include retaining
stormwater on-site to filter back into the groundwater. The proposed development will not generate hazardous wastewater
that would require any special waste discharge permits. All wastewater associated with the building’s interior plumbing
system will be discharged into the local sewer system for treatment at the regional wastewater treatment plant. Although the
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 55
amount of impervious surfaces will be greater than existing conditions, runoff will be captured by various on-site catch
basins and conveyed through a proposed on-site storm drainage system which includes water treatment prior to being
discharged into the municipal storm drain at Arroyo Drive. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of
existing regulations.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. If the project removes an existing groundwater recharge area or substantially reduces
runoff that results in groundwater recharge such that existing wells would no longer be able to operate, a potentially
significant impact could occur. The project site is located in the Main San Gabriel Basin (Main Basin). Groundwater
elevations within the Basin vary in response to seasonal rainfall patterns. Since 1993, the water levels for the Baldwin Park
Key Well have varied from an elevation high of 272 feet to a historic low of 195.5 feet.32 Project-related grading would not
reach these depths and no disturbance of groundwater is anticipated. The proposed building footprint area would increase
impervious surface coverage on the site, thereby reducing the total amount of infiltration onsite. According to the Rosemead
General Plan EIR, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) artificially recharges the groundwater
supply aquifers underlying the County by spreading imported water, local runoff, and recycled water at their 27 spreading
facilities. The project site is not one of these spreading facilities. Because this site is not managed for groundwater supplies,
this change in infiltration would not have a significant effect on groundwater table level. Impacts will be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Potentially significant impacts to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area could
occur if development of the project results in substantial on- or off-site erosion or siltation. According to the geotechnical
investigation prepared for the project site, the site sheet flows southeast toward the southeast corner. Stormwater will be
collected via proposed on-site catch basins located at the northwest, central and southeast portions of the project site.
Stormwater will then be conveyed via a proposed 18-inch storm drain to be constructed in a proposed private utility
easement southeast beneath the adjacent parking lot for St. Joseph’s Salesian Youth Renewal Retreat Center for
connection to existing facilities at Arroyo Drive. Therefore, the drainage pattern will not be substantially altered in a manner
than will cause increases in erosion off-site. Erosion and siltation reduction measures would be implemented during
construction. At the completion of construction, the project would consist of impervious surfaces and would therefore not be
prone to substantial erosion. No streams cross the project site; thus, the project would not alter any stream course. Impacts
will be less than significant.
d-e) Less Than Significant Impact. No streams traverse the project site; thus, the project would not result in the alteration
of any stream course. During construction, the project applicant would be required to comply with drainage and runoff
guidelines pursuant to Municipal Code Section 13.16.030.
With regard to project operation, construction of the proposed project would increase the net area of impermeable surfaces
on the site; therefore, increased discharges to the City’s existing storm drain system will likely occur. Stormwater will be
collected via proposed on-site catch basins located at the northwest, central and southeast portions of the project site.
Stormwater will then be conveyed via a proposed 18-inch storm drain to be constructed in a proposed private utility
easement southeast beneath the adjacent parking lot for St. Joseph’s Salesian Youth Renewal Retreat Center for
connection to existing facilities at Arroyo Drive. Permits to connect to the existing storm drainage system will be obtained
prior to construction. All drainage plans are subject to City review and approval. Therefore, the increase in discharges will
not impact local storm drain capacity. The project is not an industrial use and therefore will not result in substantial pollutant
loading such that treatment control BMPs would be required to protect downstream water quality. Impacts will be less than
significant.
f) No Impact. The project does not propose any uses that will have the potential to otherwise degrade water quality
beyond those issues discussed in Section 4.9 herein. No impacts will occur.
g) No Impact. According to flood maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the General Plan
EIR, no part of Rosemead lies within a 100-year flood zone.33 No impact will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 56
h) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not located within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The project site is identified as Zone X,
defined by FEMA as areas outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain. 34 Therefore, no rising of a flood plain will
occur.
i) No Impact. The Rosemead General Plan EIR indicates that there is potential for flooding due to dam failure at Whittier
Narrows Dam, Santa Fe River Dam/Reservoir, and the Garvey Dam/Reservoir.35 The project site is not located within the
dam inundation areas and will not be in danger of flood if the Whittier Narrows Dam, Santa Fe River Dam, or the Garvey
Dam were to fail. There will be no impact.
j) No Impact. As discussed in the Rosemead General Plan EIR, the City is not exposed to tsunami hazards due to its
inland location. In addition, no large water bodies exist in the City that would present seiche hazards. The potential for
mudflows is unlikely given the site’s distance from hillside and mountainous terrain. No impact will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 57
4.10 – Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
conservation plan? □ □ □
a) No Impact. The proposed project is surrounded by residential and institutional uses. There are residential uses to the
west, a place of worship to the north, Don Bosco Technical Institute to the east, and St. Joseph’s Salesian Youth Renewal
Retreat Center to the south of the project site. The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land
uses and will not divide an established community. The project does not propose construction of any roadway, flood control
channel, or other structure that would physically divide any portion of the community. Therefore, no impact will occur.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is designated as Public Facilities in the City’s General Plan and is
zoned Planned Development (P-D). The project includes a General Plan Amendment to amend the site’s General Plan land
use designation to Medium Density Residential. In addition, the project includes a Zoning Variance to allow deviation from
the front setback requirement of 20 feet for three of the proposed units whose side yards abut the interior of the west wall of
the project. Municipal Code Chapter 17.24 identifies standards that apply to uses designated as Planned Development. The
minimum lot area for the P-D Zone is one acre. The project site is two acres. The proposed project will include 21 residential
units and will be consistent with development standards as listed in the zoning code for the Planned Development zoning
designation. The General Plan Medium Density Residential land use designation allow for densities of up to 12 units per
acre. The proposed project consists of 21 units on two acres, resulting in a density of 10.5 units per acre which is consistent
with the maximum density allowed by the General Plan. The proposed project does not conflict with the intent or
implementation of these designations. Furthermore, the proposed project will maintain the integrity of the surrounding
residential and institutional area in terms of density, use, and design. The project does not include any feature that would
circumvent any mitigating policies in the General Plan. Impacts will be less than significant.
c) No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.4.f above, the proposed project site and surrounding areas are not part of any
habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan. As such, no impact will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 58
4.11 – Mineral Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state? □ □ □
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
□ □ □
a-b) No Impact. The project site is located in a completely urbanized area. There are no mineral extraction or process
facilities on or near the site. No mineral resources are known to exist within the vicinity. The City does not delineate any
important mineral resources in its General Plan or in any other plan. 36 No impact will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 59
4.12 – Noise
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
□ □ □
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? □ □ □
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
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?
□ □ □
Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise
Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound (and therefore noise) consists of energy waves that people receive and
interpret. Sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of sound pressures to a reference pressure,
squared. These units are called bels. In order to provide a finer description of sound, a bel is subdivided into ten decibels,
abbreviated dB. To account for the range of sound that human hearing perceives, a modified scale is utilized known as the
A-weighted decibel (dBA). Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by
ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70 dBA when it passes an
observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dBA. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 dBA. This
same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the
speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by 3 dBA. Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will reduce
the traffic noise level by 3 dBA. A 3 dBA change in sound is the beginning at which humans generally notice a barely
perceptible change in sound and a 5 dBA change is generally readily perceptible.37
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 60
Noise consists of pitch, loudness, and duration; therefore, a variety of methods for measuring noise have been developed.
According to the California General Plan Guidelines for Noise Elements, the following are common metrics for measuring
noise:38
LEQ (Equivalent Energy Noise Level): The sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same
total energy as a time-varying signal over given sample periods. LEQ is typically computed over 1-, 8-, and 24-hour sample
periods.
CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day,
obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00pm to 10:00pm and after addition of ten
decibels to sound levels in the night from 10:00pm to 7:00am.
LDN (Day-Night Average Level): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after the
addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00pm and before 7:00am.
CNEL and LDN are utilized for describing ambient noise levels because they account for all noise sources over an extended
period of time and account for the heightened sensitivity of people to noise during the night. LEQ is better utilized for
describing specific and consistent sources because of the shorter reference period.
City of Rosemead Municipal Code
Noise Standards
Pursuant to Section 8.36.060 (Noise Standards) of the Rosemead Municipal Code, allowable daytime (between the hours of
7:00 AM and 10:00 PM) noise levels are as follows:
• Residential Zone – 60 dBA
• Commercial Zone – 65 dBA
• Industrial Zone – 70 dBA
Construction Noise Levels
Pursuant to Section 8.36.030(A)(3) (Exemptions), noise associated with construction, repair, modeling, or grading taking
place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays, including Saturday or at any time on Sunday or a federal
holiday and not exceeding 65 dBA at a residential property line is exempt from noise standards.
A Noise Study was prepared by MIG and included as Appendix E.
Existing Noise Environment
Short-term noise measurements at the project site were conducted to identify the ambient noise in the project vicinity. An
American National Standards Institute (ANSI Section SI4 1979, Type 1) Larson Davis model LxT sound level meter was
used to monitor existing ambient noise levels in the project area. The noise meter was programmed in “slow” mode to record
noise levels in A-weighted form. The microphone height was set at five feet. One 15-minute daytime noise measurement
was taken between 1:28 PM and 1:43 PM on Wednesday September 28, 2016.
Ambient noise levels are a composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level
constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. The ambient noise level is presented in
Table 8 (Ambient Noise Levels).
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 61
Table 8
Ambient Noise Levels
Time Period
Measurement
Period Description
Existing Ambient Noise Levels
Leq Lmax Lmin
1:28 PM – 1:43 PM 15 minutes Eastern terminus of Orange Street 52.3 62.0 48.9
Source: MIG 2016
a, c, d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Rosemead Municipal Code (Section 8.36.060)
sets allowable levels for a variety of land uses.39 Exterior noise exposure for residential use is allowable up to 60 dBA. The
Rosemead General Plan Noise Element land use compatibility standards sets a normally acceptable noise level of 60 dBA
for school and church uses. Ambient noise in the project vicinity would generally be defined by traffic Lawrence Avenue,
Orange Street, and activity at Don Bosco Technical Institute.
Construction Noise Levels
Construction noise levels were estimated for nearby receptors using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model
(RCNM). Temporary noise increases will be greatest during the site preparation phase of construction. The model indicates
that the use of construction equipment such as graders, scrapers, and tractors could expose the church located
approximately 140 feet to the north of the center of the project site to worst case noise levels of 76.1 dBA Lmax. Table 9
(Construction Noise Impacts) below summarizes the maximum noise levels at each of the studied receivers. Pursuant to the
Rosemead Municipal Code, a noise level of 60 dBA is allowable for residential uses and pursuant to General Plan land use
compatibility guidelines, a noise level of 60 dBA is normally acceptable for church and school uses. Pursuant to Section
8.36.030(A)(3) (Exemptions), construction work conducted between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays,
including Saturday or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday is exempt, provided that noise levels do not exceed 65 dBA
at residential property lines. As shown in Table 9, the residential uses to the west of the project site could be exposed to
construction noise levels in excess of 65 dBA. Therefore, Mitigation Measure N-1 has been incorporated to minimize general
construction noise impacts to neighboring uses.
Table 9
Construction Noise Impacts
Receptor
Site
Preparation Grading
Building
Construction Paving
Architectural
Coating
1 – Evergreen Baptist Church (N) 76.1 76.1 76.1 76.1 68.7
2 – Don Bosco Institute Classrooms (E) 63.9 63.9 63.9 63.9 56.5
3 – St. Joseph’s Youth Retreat (S) 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 67.0
4 – Residential (W) 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 67.0
Source: MIG 2016
In order to ensure that construction noise is minimized at nearby receptors, Mitigation Measure N-1 will be incorporated to
minimize noise associated with general construction activities. Mitigation Measure N-1 requires the use of engineered
controls include retrofitting equipment with improved exhaust and intake muffling, disengaging equipment fans, and
installation of sound panels around equipment engines to be verified by the preparation of a noise mitigation plan once
specific construction programing and equipment is identified. These types of controls can feasibly achieve noise level
reductions of approximately 10 dBA.40 41 Should the noise mitigation plan find that the use of engineered controls will not
sufficiently reduce construction noise, the noise mitigation plan shall identify the type and location of sound curtains or other
noise barriers to be utilized to reduce construction noise and neighboring uses. Sound curtains and other noise barriers can
be used for general construction noise and achieve reductions of up to 20 dBA.42 Therefore, with implementation of
Mitigation Measure N-1, construction noise will feasibly be reduced to unsubstantial levels.
Mitigation Measure
N-1 The following measures are required to ensure that project-related short-term construction noise levels are reduced
to less-than-significant levels. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, a noise mitigation plan verifying that
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 62
compliance with the following measures would reduce construction noise to within the allowable levels of 65 dBA
for residential uses. Should construction noise exceed allowable levels after implementation of the following
measures, the use of sound curtains or other noise barriers shall be required. The noise mitigation plan shall
identify the type and location of sound curtains or other noise barriers to be utilized to reduce construction noise to
within allowable levels.
• Stationary construction noise sources such as generators or pumps must be located at least 100 feet from
sensitive land uses, as feasible, or at maximum distance when necessary to complete work near sensitive
land uses. This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically
monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections.
• Construction staging areas must be located as far from noise sensitive land uses as feasible. This
mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by
the Community Development Director or designee during routine inspections.
• Throughout construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with included
noise attenuating devices and are properly maintained. This mitigation measure shall be periodically
monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections.
• Idling equipment must be turned off when not in use. This mitigation measure may be periodically
monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections.
• Equipment must be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.
This mitigation measure may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or
designee during routine inspections.
Operational Noise levels
Traffic noise along Lawrence Avenue was calculated utilizing Existing and Existing Plus Project traffic volumes provided by
the project traffic study prepared by Kunzman Associates (Appendix F).
A substantial increase in ambient noise is an increase that is barely perceptible (3 dBA). Operationally, the proposed project
will result in periodic landscaping and other occasional noise generating activities such as conversation and vehicle noise.
These activities are common in residential uses and do not represent a substantial increase in periodic noise in
consideration that the project site is located in a residential area.
Residential uses along Lawrence Avenue are generally located approximately 50 feet from the roadway centerline. The
Existing and Existing Plus Project noise levels at 50 feet from roadway centerlines were calculated using TNM Version 2.5.
The Existing Without Project and Plus Project traffic noise for residential uses along Lawrence are summarized in Table 10
(Roadway Noise Levels).
Without and Plus Projected traffic noise levels do not exceed allowable exterior noise levels at all residential receptors. The
proposed project will not result in increases in traffic noise that will cause noise standards to be exceeded. Therefore, no
substantial impacts will result. In addition, increases in traffic due to the proposed project will not result in a perceptible noise
increase at any of the studied roadway segments. No substantial impacts will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 63
Table 10
Roadway Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Without
Project
Plus
Project
Difference Significant? dBA CNEL
Lawrence
Avenue
Between Arroyo Drive and Orange Street 57.7 58.5 +0.8 No
Between Orange Street and San Gabriel Boulevard 57.4 58.1 +0.7 No
Source: MIG 2016
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Vibration is the movement of mass over time. It is described in terms of frequency and
amplitude and unlike sound; there is no standard way of measuring and reporting amplitude. Vibration can be described in
units of velocity (inches per second) or discussed in decibel (dB) units in order to compress the range of numbers required
to describe vibration. Vibration impacts to buildings are generally discussed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) that
describes particle movement over time (in terms of physical displacement of mass). For purposes of this analysis, PPV will
be used to describe all vibration for ease of reading and comparison. Vibration can impact people, structures, and sensitive
equipment.43 The primary concern related to vibration and people is the potential to annoy those working and residing in the
area. Vibration with high enough amplitudes can damage structures (such as crack plaster or destroy windows).
Groundborne vibration can also disrupt the use of sensitive medical and scientific instruments such as electron microscopes.
Common sources of vibration within communities include construction activities and railroads. Operation of the proposed
mixed-use development does not include uses that cause vibration.
Groundborne vibration generated by construction projects is usually highest during pile driving, rock blasting, soil
compacting, jack hammering, and demolition-related activities. Next to pile driving, grading activity has the greatest potential
for vibration impacts if large bulldozers, large trucks, or other heavy equipment are used. The construction of the proposed
Project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction
vibration levels.
According to the Caltrans vibration manual, large bulldozers, vibratory rollers (used to compact earth), and loaded trucks
utilized during grading activities can produce vibration, and depending on the level of vibration, could cause annoyance at
uses within the project vicinity or damage structures. Caltrans has developed a screening tool to determine of vibration from
construction equipment is substantial enough to impact surrounding uses.
The Caltrans vibration manual establishes thresholds for vibration impacts on buildings and humans. These thresholds are
summarized in Tables 11 (Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria) and 12 (Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold
Criteria).
Table 11
Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria
Structural Integrity Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Continuous
Historic and some older buildings 0.50 0.25
Older residential structures 0.50 0.30
New residential structures 1.00 0.50
Modern industrial and commercial structures 2.00 0.50
Source: Caltrans 2013
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 64
Table 12
Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold Criteria
Human Response PPV Threshold (in/sec)
Transient Continuous
Barely perceptible 0.035 0.012
Distinctly perceptible 0.24 0.035
Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10
Severely perceptible 2.00 0.40
Source: Caltrans 2013
Construction activities that use vibratory rollers and bulldozers are repetitive sources of vibration; therefore, the continuous
threshold is used. Residential uses are located to the north and west of the project site and commercial uses are located to
the north, east, and south. As a worst case scenario, the historic and some older buildings threshold is used. Based on the
threshold criteria summarized in Tables 11 and 12, vibration from use of heavy construction equipment for the proposed
project would be below the thresholds to cause damage to nearby structures at the receptors shown in Table 13
(Construction Vibration Impacts).
Construction of the project does not require rock blasting, pile driving, or the use of a jack hammer, but will use a vibratory
roller, and small bulldozer, and loaded trucks. All of the receptors will experience barely perceptible vibration from the use of
a small bulldozer and loaded truck. Receptors #1, #3, and #4 will experience less than distinctly perceptible vibration from
the use of a vibratory roller. However, a vibratory roller will only be utilized during the paving phase, which will be completed
within a maximum of ten days. Furthermore, pursuant to the Rosemead Municipal Code, these construction activities will be
limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM Mondays through Friday, including Saturday or at any time on Sunday or a
federal holiday. Therefore, the project will not result in excessive, strongly perceptible vibration.
With regard to long-term operational impacts, activities associated with the project will not result in any excessive vibration-
related impacts to adjacent or on-site properties.
Table 13
Construction Vibration Impacts
Receptors
Equipment PPVref
Distance
(feet) PPV
1 – Evergreen Baptist Church (N) Vibratory Roller 0.21 140 0.0224
2 – Don Bosco Institute Classrooms (E) Vibratory Roller 0.21 570 0.0036
3 – St. Joseph’s Youth Retreat (S) Vibratory Roller 0.21 170 0.0174
4 – Residential (W) Vibratory Roller 0.21 170 0.0174
1 – Evergreen Baptist Church (N) Small Bulldozer 0.003 140 0.0003
2 – Don Bosco Institute Classrooms (E) Small Bulldozer 0.003 570 0.0001
3 – St. Joseph’s Youth Retreat (S) Small Bulldozer 0.003 170 0.0002
4 – Residential (W) Small Bulldozer 0.003 170 0.0002
1 – Evergreen Baptist Church (N) Loaded Truck 0.076 140 0.0081
2 – Don Bosco Institute Classrooms (E) Loaded Truck 0.076 570 0.0013
3 – St. Joseph’s Youth Retreat (S) Loaded Truck 0.076 170 0.0063
4 – Residential (W) Loaded Truck 0.076 170 0.0063
Source: MIG 2016
e,f) No Impact. The project site is not located within two miles of a public or private use airport or heliport.44 Therefore, no
impacts will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 65
4.13 – Population and Housing
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
□ □ □
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? □ □ □
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? □ □ □
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of 21 single family residential units. According to the
California Department of Finance, the City of Rosemead had a population of 55,231 as of January 2016.45 The Southern
California Association of Government’s (SCAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS) projects an estimated population of 60,800 for Rosemead by the year 2040, an increase of 5,569 residents. The
proposed project will result in the addition of 21 dwelling units, resulting in an increase of 79 residents according to an
average household size of 3.74 residents.46 Increases in population are within the growth assumptions estimated by SCAG
and thus will not be substantially growth inducing. No new expanded infrastructure is proposed that could accommodate
additional growth in the area that is not already possible with existing infrastructure. Impacts will be less than significant.
b) No Impact. The project site is a former sports field for the Don Bosco Technical Institute and does not contain
residential uses. The proposed project will not displace any residential units necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere. No impact will occur.
c) No Impact. Displacement, in the context of housing, can generally be defined as persons or groups of persons who have
been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence.47 There no residences existing on site
and no residents will be displaced with project development. The development of the project is consistent with the character
of the project area. No impact will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 66
4.14 – 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:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Fire protection? □ □ □
b) Police protection? □ □ □
c) Schools? □ □ □
d) Parks? □ □ □
e) Other public facilities? □ □ □
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Los Angeles County Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency
medical response services in the City of Rosemead. The City is located in the East Region Bureau of the Department’s
jurisdiction and is served by Battalion 10. There are two stations located within Rosemead: Station No. 4 (2644 North San
Gabriel Boulevard), located approximately 1.2 miles north of the project site and Station No. 42 (9319 East Valley
Boulevard), located approximately three miles northeast of the project site. According to the General Plan EIR, the
Department sets a goal for an average response time of five minutes for Basic Life Support (BLS) responses and eight
minutes for Advanced Life Support (ALS) responses based on the national standard for urban areas.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department provides technical fire prevention activities by checking building construction
plans to make sure all proposed buildings meet appropriate safety codes prior to construction. Fire inspectors perform plan
review on all proposed fire sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, and restaurant hood extinguishing system installation.
The proposed project will include the development of residential uses within a built out area. The project will not have a
significant impact on fire response times because the project is located within the existing service area. No new or expanded
fire protection facilities would be required as a result of this project. Furthermore, the proposed project does not propose to
use substantially hazardous materials or engage in hazardous activities that will require new or modified fire protection
equipment to meet potential emergency demand. Impacts related to expansion of fire protection services will be less than
significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) provides police protection services
in the City of Rosemead. Service is administered from the Temple Station in the Region I patrol area. According to the
General Plan EIR, as of 2008, the Temple Station dedicates 23 deputies, one sergeant, and one lieutenant to the City of
Rosemead. The Station’s response time goals are four to five minutes for emergency calls, eight to nine minutes for priority
calls, and 30 to 40 minutes for routine calls.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 67
The proposed development will not result in any unique or more extensive crime problems that cannot be handled with the
existing level of police resources. The proposed project is located within the Temple Station service area. No new or
expanded police facilities would need to be constructed as a result of this project. Impacts related to expansion of police
protection services will be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As a residential development, there is a potential for households with school-age children
locating in this development. Pursuant to the Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act of 1998 (Education Code §§ 17070.10, et
seq.), the project proponent will be required to pay developer fees to the Montebello Unified School District before the City
issues building permits pursuant to Education Code § 17620, at the then current rate charged to residential development
projects. This fee will help support provision of school services for the community as a whole. Pursuant to Government Code
§ 65995, payment of developer fees constitutes adequate mitigation for any project-related impacts to school facilities.
Impacts to the school facilities will be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Demand for park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential
development. Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.170.040 requires that new developments pay development impact fee
(DIF) which includes payment for park facilities. According to the General Plan EIR, the City currently maintains a total of
43.25 acres at the following park and recreation facilities:
• Angelus Park – Approximately 0.9 miles north of the project site
• Garvey Park – Approximately 1.8 miles northwest of the project site
• Garvey Recreation Center – Approximately 1.8 miles northwest of the project site
• Guess Park – Approximately 3.2 miles north of the project site
• Klingerman Park – Approximately 1.1 miles northeast of the project site
• Olney Park – Approximately 2.2 miles northeast of the project site
• Rosemead Center – Approximately 2.7 miles northeast of the project site
• Rosemead Park – Approximately 3.1 miles northeast of the project site
• Sally Tanner Park – Approximately 3.4 miles north of the project site
• Jess Gonzalez Sports Complex – Approximately 1.0 miles northeast of the project site
• Triangle Park – Approximately 0.4 miles east of the project site
• Zapopan Park – Approximately 1.5 miles north of the project site
The proposed project will provide common open space which includes a pocket park with an open turf area and benches.
This pocket park in combination with public landscaping and open space along internal roadways and private back yards will
provide approximately 38,195 square feet of public and private open space. As a result, no substantial increase in demand
for park and recreation facilities is anticipated as recreational opportunities will be provided on-site and the Applicant will be
required to pay park fees per the Municipal Code. Impacts will be less than significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the development of 21 single family residential units
and will include common public and private open space. The project will not result in an increase in residents that will
generate additional demand for public facilities such as libraries or hospitals. Development of the proposed project will not
require expansion of any other public services such as libraries or hospitals. The proposed development will not significantly
increase the demand of such services. A less than significant impact will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 68
4.15 – Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
□ □ □
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
□ □ □
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not significantly increase use of existing recreational facilities
because the project will provide common public open space and private back yard areas for its residents on site. Therefore,
the use of public facilities will be unlikely. Additionally, the project is subject to park fees to support existing and future public
recreation efforts. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated and no mitigation measures are needed.
b) No Impact. The project includes 19,908 square feet of common public open space and landscaping and approximately
18,287 square feet of private back yard area for a total of approximately 38,195 square feet of public and private open
space. The proposed project will not include the construction or expansion of existing outdoor recreational facilities.
Therefore, there will be no adverse physical effect on the environment caused by expansion or construction of outdoor
recreational facilities. No impact will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 69
4.16 – Transportation and Traffic
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and
non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
□ □ □
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
□ □ □
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
□ □ □
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
□ □ □
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ □
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of such facilities?
□ □ □
a) Less than Significant Impact. A traffic impact study was conducted by Kunzman Associates dated October 12, 2016,
(Appendix F) to assess project-related traffic impacts. The traffic analysis presents existing traffic generation at the project site
and trip generation from the proposed project using the methodology outlined in Appendix F. Senate Bill 743 requires the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to Level of
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 70
Service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts. The proposed updates to the CEQA Guidelines are currently in the
process of being finalized. The draft proposal presents a fundamental shift in the way transportation impacts will be assessed in
the future by replacing the commonly used LOS metric with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric for
transportation impacts across the state. The amended CEQA Guidelines are expected to go into effect in late 2016/early 2017,
at which point there will be a two-year opt-in period for adherence to the new CEQA Guidelines. In the meantime, the LOS
metric used in current traffic impact analyses is acceptable for evaluation of CEQA transportation impacts.
The traffic impact analysis analyzed roadway segment capacity for Lawrence Avenue. Because the City of Rosemead and the
County of Los Angeles do not have daily capacity standards for residential streets, the “rule-of-thumb” roadway capacity for
local street with residential frontage, 1,600 vehicles per day, was utilized. The County of Los Angeles requires the
preparation of further traffic analysis if peak hour trips exceed 50 trips. The project trip generation will not exceed 50
peak hour trips. Therefore, a no further traffic analysis is required for this project.
Existing average daily trips (ADT) for Lawrence Avenue on two segments were obtained by Kunzman Associates in
September 2016. Existing ADT is summarized in Table 15 (Residential Street Capacity). As shown in Table 15,
Lawrence Avenue provides adequate capacity for existing traffic conditions.
Project Traffic
Trip Generation
The project trip generation estimates were based on trip rates defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual (9th Edition). Traffic volumes, shown in Table 14 (Project Trip Generation), consist of the total trips
generated for the proposed residential use. The proposed project will generate approximately 200 daily weekday trips including
16 trips during the AM peak hour and 21 trips during the PM peak hour.
Table 14
Project Trip Generation
Land Use Intensity Daily Total
Weekday
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Single Family Residential 21 DU 200 16 21
Source: Kunzman Associates, 2016
Existing Without and Plus Project roadway capacity is shown in Table 15 (Residential Street Capacity). As shown in
Table 15, future traffic volumes are considered acceptable for a street that fronts residential land use. Impacts are less
than significant. Mitigation is not required.
Table 15
Residential Street Capacity
Roadway Segment
Average Daily Traffic Volumes Acceptable
Traffic
Volume? Existing Project
Existing
Plus Project
Lawrence
Avenue
Between Arroyo Drive and Orang Street 567 110 677 Yes
Between Orange Street and San Gabriel Boulevard 536 90 626 Yes
Source: Kunzman Associates, 2016
b) No Impact. Pursuant to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Congestion Management Plan
(CMP), any project that adds 150 or more peak hour vehicle trips to freeway segments or 50 or more peak hour vehicle trips to
roadway segments must be examined for impact of CMP roadways and intersections. The proposed project trip distributions
would result in 16 trips in the AM peak hour and 21 trips in the PM peak hour. This is below the 150 and 50 peak hour trips
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 71
thresholds which would require a freeway segment and roadway analysis. The project would not, therefore, conflict with an
applicable congestion management program or level of service standard established by the congestion management agency.
No impact would occur.
c) No Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project caused a change in air traffic patterns that would result
in a substantial safety risk. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and does not include any structures that
would change air traffic patterns or uses that would generate air traffic. Therefore, no impacts related to a change in air traffic
patterns would occur.
d) No Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project substantially increased an existing hazardous design
feature or introduced incompatible uses to the existing traffic pattern. Access to the project site is proposed via Orange Street.
The design of the proposed project would comply with all applicable City regulations. Furthermore, the proposed project does
not involve changes in the alignment of Orange Street and the proposed single family use is consistent with existing single
family uses adjacent to the project site on the west. This project would not result in a traffic safety hazard due to any design
features.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the design of the proposed project would not satisfy
emergency access requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department or in any other way threaten the ability of
emergency vehicles to access and serve the project site or adjacent uses. The proposed project would not result in inadequate
emergency access. As discussed above, access to the project site is proposed via Orange Street. The width, 26 feet, is
sufficient to provide access to fire and emergency vehicles and is consistent with the California Fire Code requiring a minimum
of 20 feet. All access features are subject to and must satisfy the City of Rosemead design requirements, including the Fire
Department’s requirements. This project would not result in adverse impacts with regard to emergency access.
f) Less than Significant Impact. Public bus transit service in the project vicinity is currently provided by the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Transit Route 176 along Paramount Boulevard to the south of San Gabriel
Boulevard and San Gabriel Boulevard to the north. Route 176 serves the San Gabriel Valley from Highland Park east through
South Pasadena, San Marino, Alhambra, San Gabriel, Temple City, El Monte, Rosemead, and Montebello. The proposed
project will not conflict with or decrease the performance or safety of these services. Impacts will be less than significant.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 72
4.17 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a Cultural
Native American tribe, and that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
□ □ □
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American
tribe.
□ □ □
a -b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 specifies that a project that
may cause a substantial adverse change to a defined Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) may result in a significant effect on
the environment. AB 52 requires tribes interested in development projects within a traditionally and culturally affiliated
geographic area to notify a lead agency of such interest and to request notification of future projects subject to CEQA prior
to determining if a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a
project. The lead agency is then required to notify the tribe within 14 days of deeming a development application subject to
CEQA complete to notify the requesting tribe as an invitation to consult on the project. AB 52 identifies examples of
mitigation measures that will avoid or minimize impacts to TCR. The bill makes the above provisions applicable to projects
that have a notice of preparation or a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration
circulated on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 amends Sections 5097.94 and adds Sections 21073, 21074, 2108.3.1., 21080.3.2,
21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3 to the California Public Resources Code (PRC), relating to Native Americans.
The results of the records research compiled from the CHRIS-SCCIC, the Sacred Lands File Search (commissioned through
the NAHC), follow-up Native American Scoping, and the pedestrian field survey failed to indicate known TCR within the
project boundaries or within a one-mile radius of the project area as specified in Public Resources Code (PRC): 210741,
5020.1(k), or 5024. Although there was no indication of known TCRs within the project site or within a one-half radius of the
project area, archival research indicates that there are Native American resources including encampments in close proximity
of the Rio Hondo River (1.5 miles to the east) and the Whittier Narrows Flood Plain (1.3 miles to the southeast) of the project
site. AB 52 (Gatto, 2014) is clear in stating that it is the responsibility of the Public Agency (e.g. Lead Agency) to consult with
Native American tribes early in the CEQA process to allow tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to
discuss the appropriate level of environment review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to TCRs, and reduce the
potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process (see PRC Section 2108.3.2). Specifically, government-
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 73
to-government consultation may provide “tribal knowledge” of the project area that can be used in identifying TCRs that
cannot be obtained through other investigative means.
Despite the heavy disturbances of the project area that may have displaced or submerged archaeological resources relating
to TCR’s on the surface and due to the close proximity of Coyote Pass (Native American trail) and the foothills located to the
west of the project site (known Native American encampments), it is possible that intact tribal cultural resources exist at
depth. Due to this uncertainty, Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-4 have been incorporated to address any previously
undiscovered archaeological resources relating to TCR’s encountered during project implementation. Incorporation of
mitigation will ensure that potential impacts to buried TCRs are less than significant through requirements for evaluation,
salvage, curation, and reporting.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 74
4.18 – Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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? □ □ □
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project could affect Regional Water Quality Control Board treatment
standards by increasing wastewater production such that expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities
would be required. Exceeding the RWQCB treatment standards could result in contamination of surface or groundwater with
pollutants such as pathogens and nitrates.
New development in the City is required to install wastewater infrastructure concurrent with project development. The City
contracts with the Los Angeles County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (LACCSMD) for maintenance of local
sewer lines that collect wastewater generated in the City. All wastewater generated by the interior plumbing system of the
proposed project would be discharged into the local sewer main and conveyed for treatment at the Sanitation Districts of Los
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 75
Angeles County’s Reclamation Plants. Wastewater from the area is generally treated at the County’s Joint Water Pollution
Control Plant (JWPCP), located in the City of Carson, although it may also be treated by plants located closer to the project
site. Wastewater flows will consist of typical residential wastewater discharges and will not require new methods or
equipment for treatment that are not currently permitted for the Plant. The JWPCP has a capacity of treating 400 million
gallons/day (mgd). Wastewater flows associated with the proposed project would consist of the same kinds of substances
typically generated by residential uses and no modifications to any existing wastewater treatment systems or construction of
any new ones would be needed to treat this project’s wastewater. Estimated wastewater generated by the proposed
development is approximately 4,889 gallons per day (gpd) (wastewater is estimated to be 80 percent of total water use).
This volume is within the remaining capacity of the JWPCP’s 400 mgd total treatment capacity. This project would thus have
a less-than-significant impact on the ability of the JWPCP to operate within its established wastewater treatment
requirements, which are enforced via the facility’s NPDES permit authorized by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board (LARWQCB). Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to wastewater treatment
requirements of the LARWQCB.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The San Gabriel Valley Water Company (SGVWC) will supply water to the project. The
SGVWC provides public utility water service to all or portions of the Cities of Arcadia, Baldwin Park, El Monte, Industry,
Irwindale, La Puente, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, San Gabriel, Santa Fe Springs, South El Monte,
West Covina, Whittier, and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County including Hacienda Heights and South San Gabriel.
One hundred percent of the SGVWC service area water supply is produced from groundwater with the majority from the
Main San Gabriel Basin (Main Basin). Water Code § 10910-10915 require the preparation of a water supply assessment
(WSA) demonstrating sufficient water supplies for any subdivision that involves the construction of more than 500 dwelling
units, or the equivalent thereof. As the project is below the established thresholds, no WSA is required.
Although there is no limit on the quantity of water that may be extracted from the Main Basin, the SGVWC must not pump
more than its allowed pumping right of 20,384.9 acre feet per year (AFY). If SGVWC pumps more than the allowed amount
of water, SGVWC must pay assessments levied by the Main San Gabriel Watermaster to purchase replacement water to
recharge the Main Basin, lease another pumper’s share of the Operating Safe Yield, or SGVWC may choose to pre-
purchase supplemental MWD water from Upper District for its Individual Producer Cyclic Storage Account.48 SGVWC pumps
groundwater from the Central Basin and has an allowed pumping right of 2,565.35 AFY. The Water Replenishment District
of Southern California is responsible for recharging the Central Basin.
The water supplied within the SGVWC service area as of 2015 was approximately 32,846 AFY and is expected to increase
to 47,503 AFY by the year 2035, an increase of 14,657 AFY. Based on the CalEEMod assumptions, the proposed project’s
estimated water demand is approximately 6.85 AFY, within the estimated increase in water demand. According to the 2015
Urban Water Management Plan for SGVWC, there is sufficient supply to accommodate demand under normal and single-
and multiple-dry year conditions. In addition, the 2015 UWMP identified a per capita water demand target of 151 gallons per
capita per day (GPCD). As discussed in Section 4.13, the proposed project is estimated to generate a population of 79
residents. According to CalEEMod default water demand generation rates, the proposed project is estimated to demand
approximately 6,112 gpd, resulting in daily demand of 77.36 GPCD. This meets the 2015 UWMP per capita target for water
use.
The UWMP is based on area population projections as provided by SCAG. As discussed in Section 4.13, the proposed
project is consistent with SCAG projections for the City of Rosemead. As the estimated increase in water use is within the
anticipated increase in the Urban Water Management Plan, the project is consistent with regional population projections,
and the project meets the UWMP per capita water use target, impacts would be less than significant.
Regarding wastewater facilities, as discussed in the preceding response, wastewater generated at the project site is treated
at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP). The proposed project is estimated to have a wastewater generation of
approximately 4,889 gpd. This generation is well within the existing remaining treatment capacity of the JWPCP.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 76
Connections to local water and sewer mains will involve temporary and less than significant construction impacts that would
occur in conjunction with other on-site improvements. No additional improvements are needed to either sewer lines or
treatment facilities to serve the proposed project. Standard connection fees will address any incremental impacts of the
proposed project. Therefore, the project will result in less than significant impacts as a result of new or expanded wastewater
treatment facilities.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Potentially significant impacts could occur as a result of this project if storm water
runoff was increased to a level that would require construction of new storm drainage facilities. As discussed in the
Hydrology section, the proposed project would not generate any increased runoff from the site that would require
construction of new storm drainage facilities. A NPDES permit will be required for the proposed project and, pursuant to
Municipal Code Section 13.16.030, all construction projects equal to or greater than one acre and less than five acres shall
prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Best Management Practices (BMPs) that include
drainage controls such as detention ponds, dikes, filter berms, and downdrains to prevent runoff, and utilizing plastic
covering to prevent erosion shall also be applied. Implementation of BMPs would reduce pollutants in stormwater and urban
runoff from the project site. The proposed storm drainage system and BMPs must be designed to the satisfaction of the
City’s Public Works Director and in conformance with all applicable permits and regulations. The project applicant/developer
would be required to provide all necessary on-site infrastructure. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation
beyond compliance with existing regulations is required. The project will have a less than significant impact on requiring the
construction of new facilities or expansion of existing storm drainage facilities.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project could result in significant impacts if the project required additional water
supplies than are currently entitled. Water demand is provided by survey data utilized in the CalEEMod air quality model.
Water demand is estimated at 2,230,813 gallons per year or 6.85 acre feet per year. Water demand within the SGVWC
service area is anticipated to increase by 114,657 acre feet per year (AFY) between 2015 and 2035. The proposed project’s
estimated water demand is approximately 6.85 AFY, well within anticipated increase in demand. Based on the SGVWC
2015 UWMP, there are sufficient water supplies to meet the project’s estimated water demand and long-term demand. The
project will not substantially deplete water supplies, and the project will have a less than significant impact on entitled water
supplies.
On January 17, 2014, California Governor Edmund D. Brown Jr. proclaimed a State of Emergency in California. State
agencies were directed to use less water and hire more firefighters. In addition, a greatly expanded water conservation
public awareness campaign was initiated. On April 25, 2014, the Governor proclaimed a continued State of Emergency due
to the ongoing drought. On September 18, 2014, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-26-14 to provide water to
families in dire need of water as extreme drought conditions continue. This order makes funding available through the
California Disaster Assistance Act to provide water for drinking and sanitation to households currently without running water.
On December 22, 2014, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-28-14, extending the waiver of CEQA and Water Code
section 13247 in Paragraph 9 of the January 17, 2014 Proclamation and Paragraph 19 of the April 25, 2014 Proclamation.
On April 1, 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-29-15, mandating substantial water reductions in the state of
California. This Executive Order includes actions that will save water, increase enforcement to prevent wasteful water use,
streamline the state’s drought response, and invest in new technologies that will make California more drought-resilient.
Pursuant to Directive 2 of Executive Order B-29-15, the State Water Resources Control Board shall impose restrictions on
potable urban water usage through February 28, 2016. Executive Order B-36-15 was issued on November 13, 2015,
requiring that Executive Orders B-26-14, B-28-14, and B-29-15 remain in full force with additional directives. This Order
includes directives to extend previous restrictions on wasteful water use until October 31, 2016, to prioritize the capture of
high precipitation events and solutions to provide reliable drinking water, and to expedite applications for amendments to
power plant certifications to remediate wildfire damage and to restore power plant operation. Governor Brown executed
Executive Order B-37-16 on May 9, 2016, extending restrictions and directives required by previous Executive Orders B-26-
14, B-28-14, B-29-15, and B-36.15. This Executive Order requires that State agencies update temporary emergency water
restrictions and transition to permanent, long-term improvements in water use by using water more wisely, eliminating water
waste, strengthening local drought resilience, and improving agricultural water use efficiency and drought planning.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 77
As summarized above, the 2015 UWMP indicates that there is adequate supply to serve the projected demand. Reduction in
potable water usage facilitated by Executive Orders B-29-15, B-36-15, and B-37-16 will result in a minimum 16 percent
decrease in water demand within the SGVWC service area.49 The proposed project will be consistent with applicable
Directives of each Executive Order, will comply with all water conservation and efficiency standards required by the
Rosemead Public Works Department, and will contribute to the state-wide effort to reduce water demand. In addition, the
proposed project is anticipated to demand 77. 36 GPCD, which meets the 2015 UWMP target per capita water demand of
151 GPCD. Therefore, there are sufficient water supplies to meet the project’s estimated water demand and long-term
demand. The project will not substantially deplete water supplies, and the project will have a less than significant impact on
entitled water supplies.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. As detailed in Sections 4.17.a and 4.17.b, the proposed project will be adequately
served by existing facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. Significant impacts could occur if the proposed project will exceed the existing
permitted landfill capacity or violates federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Compliance with County waste
reduction programs and policies would reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. Individual development projects
within the County would be required to comply with applicable state and local regulations, thus reducing the amount of
landfill waste by at least 50 percent. The proposed project would increase the volume of solid waste generated in the County
by 24.6 tons per year. According to CalRecycle, solid waste facilities serving Los Angeles County had a combined annual
disposal limit surplus of 6,959,406 tons in 2015 and are projected to have a combined annual disposal limit surplus of
6,500,388 tons in the year 2025.50 Combined remaining capacities at the landfills would be adequate to accommodate the
proposed project. Impacts related to sufficient landfill capacity are anticipated to be less than significant.
g) No Impact. The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable federal, state, County, and City statutes and
regulations related to solid waste as a standard project condition of approval. Therefore, no impact will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 78
4.19 – Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
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? □ □ □
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? □ □ □
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not substantially impact any scenic
vistas, scenic resources, or the visual character of the area, as discussed in Section 4.1 and would not result in excessive
light or glare. The project site is located within an urbanized area with no natural habitat. The project would not significantly
impact any sensitive plants, plant communities, fish, wildlife or habitat for any sensitive species. There would be no impact to
migratory birds. Adverse impacts to historic, paleontological resources, or human remains would not occur. Construction-
phase procedures would be implemented in the event any important cultural, archaeological, or paleontological resources
are discovered during grading, consistent with Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-8. This site is not known to have any
association with an important example of California’s history or prehistory. The environmental analysis provided in Section
4.3 concludes that impacts related to emissions of criteria pollutants and other air quality impacts will be less than
significant. Sections 4.7 and 4.9 conclude that impacts related to climate change and hydrology and water quality will be less
than significant. Based on the preceding analysis of potential impacts in the responses to items 4.1 thru 4.17, no evidence is
presented that this project would degrade the quality of the environment. Impacts related to degradation of the environment,
biological resources, and cultural resources will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Cumulative impacts can result from the interactions of
environmental changes resulting from one proposed project with changes resulting from other past, present, and future
projects that affect the same resources, utilities and infrastructure systems, public services, transportation network elements,
air basin, watershed, or other physical conditions. Such impacts could be short-term and temporary, usually consisting of
overlapping construction impacts, as well as long term, due to the permanent land use changes and operational
characteristics involved with the project. Cumulative impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as
further discussed herein.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 79
Aesthetics
Impacts related to aesthetics at the project-level have no potential for cumulative impacts because impacts are limited to on-
site conditions and include no component that could result in similar impacts over time or space. Therefore, no cumulative
impacts related to this topic will occur.
Agricultural Resources
The analysis provided in Sections 4.2 found that no individual impacts would occur; therefore, the project could not
contribute considerably to local agricultural or forestry.
Air Quality
The analysis provided in Section 4.3 related to air quality found that impacts would be less than significant without the need
for mitigation; therefore, the project will not contribute to localized or regional cumulative impacts.
Biological Resources
The analysis provided in Section 4.4 found that no individual impacts to sensitive species or migratory birds would occur;
therefore, the project could not contribute considerably to regional impacts on such species. The project will have no other
impacts on biological resources.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Loss of on-site archaeological resources could reduce or eliminate important information relevant to the County of Los
Angeles and the City of Rosemead. Impacts related to cultural resources were found to be potentially significant and require
mitigation to reduce to less than significant levels; therefore, the project could contribute considerably to significant localized
cumulative impacts in this topic area. Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-4 have been incorporated to reduce impacts to
archaeological resources, Mitigation Measures C-5 through C-8 have been incorporated to reduce impacts to
paleontological resources, and Mitigation Measure C-9 has been incorporated to reduce impacts to human remains.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-9 will eliminate any potential loss of important local archaeological,
and paleontological information or human remains that may be buried under the project site; therefore, the project will have
no contribution to a cumulative loss of important local or regional archaeological knowledge.
Geology and Soils
Impacts related to geology at the project-level have no potential for cumulative impacts because impacts are limited to on-
site conditions and include no component that could result in similar impacts over time or space. Therefore, no cumulative
impacts related to this topic will occur.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As discussed in Section 4.7, climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gas emissions all
over the world. The project will not contribute considerably to global climate change.
Hazardous Materials
The analysis provided in Section 4.8 related to hazards and hazardous materials found that impacts would be less than
significant. Compliance with all regulations related to the disposal and storage of household hazardous waste will ensure
that impacts will be less than significant.
Airport Hazards
Impacts related to airport hazards at the project-level have no potential for cumulative impacts because impacts are limited
to on-site conditions and include no component that could result in similar impacts over time or space. Therefore, no
cumulative impacts related to this topic will occur.
Wildfires
The analysis provided in Section 4.8(h) found that no individual, local, or regional impacts would occur; therefore, no
cumulative impacts related to this topic will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 80
Groundwater Levels
The analysis provided in Section 4.9 (b) found that less than significant local, or regional impacts would occur; therefore,
while the project will contribute to individual, localized or regional cumulative impacts, the project contribution will not be
considerable.
Drainage/Water Quality
The analysis provided in Section 4.9 (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f), found that less than significant individual, local, or regional
impacts would occur; therefore, while the project will contribute to individual, localized or regional cumulative impacts, the
project contribution will not be considerable.
Flooding
The analysis provided in Section 4.9 (d), (g), (h), and (i), found that no regional impacts would occur; therefore, no
cumulative impacts related to this topic will occur.
Land Use and Planning
The analysis provided in Section 4.10 related to Land Use and Planning found that impacts would be less than significant;
therefore, while the project will contribute to individual, localized or regional cumulative impacts, the project contribution will
not be considerable.
Mineral Resources
The analysis provided in Section 4.11 related to mineral resources found that there would be no impact; therefore, while the
project will contribute to localized or regional cumulative impacts, the project contribution will not be considerable.
Noise
The project is not a substantial source of operational noise, as discussed in Section 4.12.C, and therefore would not
contribute considerably to noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the project. The project will contribute to temporary
increases in noise levels in the immediate project vicinity during construction activities; however, Mitigation Measure N-1 will
be incorporated to minimize construction-related noise and therefore the project’s contribution will not be considerable. The
project will increase traffic in the project area; however, project traffic-related noise will not be discernible (as discussed in
Section 4.12.C) to the public and therefore will have no considerable contribution to cumulative traffic-related noise.
Population and Housing
The analysis provided in Section 4.13 related to Population and Housing found that no impacts would result; therefore, no
cumulative impacts related to this topic will occur.
Public Services
The analysis provided in Section 4.14 related to Public Services found that impacts would be less than significant; therefore,
while the project will contribute to localized cumulative impacts, the project contribution will not be considerable.
Recreation
The analysis provided in Section 4.15 related to Recreation found that impacts would be less than significant; therefore,
while the project will contribute to localized cumulative impacts, the project contribution will not be considerable.
Traffic and Transportation
Traffic conditions were analyzed in Section 4.16.a and found to be less than significant. There is and will be adequate
capacity to serve the residential uses along Lawrence Avenue with the addition of the proposed projects. Impacts to regional
transportation facilities are analyzed in Section 4.16.b. The project will have no impact on regional (Congestion Management
Program) facilities in the project area. The project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to local and regional transportation
facilities will not be considerable.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 81
Utilities and Service Systems
The analysis provided in Section 4.17 related to Utilities and Service Systems found that impacts would be less than
significant; therefore, while the project will contribute to localized or regional cumulative impacts, the project contribution will
not be considerable.
c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the analysis of the project’s impacts in the responses
to items 4.1 thru 4.17, there is no indication that this project could result in substantial adverse effects on human beings.
While there would be a variety of temporary adverse effects during construction related to air quality and noise, these will be
reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation. Long-term effects include increased vehicular traffic, traffic-related
noise, use of household hazardous materials, emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, and increased
demand on emergency response services. The analysis herein concludes that direct and indirect environmental effects will
at worst require mitigation to reduce to less than significant levels. Generally, environmental effects will result in less than
significant impacts. Based on the analysis in this Initial Study, the City finds that direct and indirect impacts to human beings
will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 82
ð
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 83
5 Mitigation Summary
C-1 Conduct Archaeological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The Applicant 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 will 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.
C-2 Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered.
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 should be contacted and consulted and Native
American construction monitoring should be initiated. The Applicant and 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.
C-3 Conduct Periodic Archeological Resources Spot Checks during grading and earth-moving activities in Younger
Alluvial Sediments. The Applicant 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
will be conducted at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that
construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological artifacts construction
monitoring for Archaeological Resources will be required. The Applicant 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.
C-4 Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. 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 Applicant, 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
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 84
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-5 Conduct Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The Applicant shall retain a professional
paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall 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 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.
C-6 Conduct Periodic Paleontological Spot Checks during grading and earth-moving activities. The Applicant 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 Applicant 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.
C-7 Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Paleontological Resources Are Encountered.
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 Applicant and 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 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.
C-8 Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. 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 Applicant, 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.
C-9 Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Notify County Coroner If Human Remains Are Encountered. If human
remains are unearthed during implementation of the Proposed Project, the City of Rosemead and the Applicant
shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The City of Rosemead and the Applicant shall
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 85
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). 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.
N-1 The following measures are required to ensure that project-related short-term construction noise levels are reduced
to less-than-significant levels. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, a noise mitigation plan verifying that
compliance with the following measures would reduce construction noise to within the allowable levels of 65 dBA
for residential uses. Should construction noise exceed allowable levels after implementation of the following
measures, the use of sound curtains or other noise barriers shall be required. The noise mitigation plan shall
identify the type and location of sound curtains or other noise barriers to be utilized to reduce construction noise to
within allowable levels.
• Stationary construction noise sources such as generators or pumps must be located at least 100 feet from
sensitive land uses, as feasible, or at maximum distance when necessary to complete work near sensitive
land uses. This mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically
monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections.
• Construction staging areas must be located as far from noise sensitive land uses as feasible. This
mitigation measure must be implemented throughout construction and may be periodically monitored by
the Community Development Director or designee during routine inspections.
• Throughout construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with included
noise attenuating devices and are properly maintained. This mitigation measure shall be periodically
monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections.
• Idling equipment must be turned off when not in use. This mitigation measure may be periodically
monitored by the Community Development Director, or designee during routine inspections.
• Equipment must be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.
This mitigation measure may be periodically monitored by the Community Development Director, or
designee during routine inspections.
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 86
ð
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 87
6 References
6.1 – List of Preparers
City of Rosemead (Lead Agency)
Planning Division
8838 East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, California 91770
626-569-2140
§ Lily T. Valenzuela, City Planner
MIG (Environmental Analysis, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise)
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110
Riverside, California 92507
951-787-9222
§ Christopher Brown, Director of Environmental Services
§ Christopher Purtell, Senior Archaeologist
§ Olivia Chan, Associate Analyst
Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. (Geology & Soils)
1011 North Armando Street
Anaheim, California 92806
714-630-1626
§ David E. Albus, G.E. 2455, Principal Engineer
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Hazards and Hazardous Materials)
2154 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 200
Torrance, California 90501
800-419-4923
§ Jason Bates, LEP, Senior Author
§ Robin Blanchard, Environmental Professional
Kunzman Associates (Traffic Analysis)
1111 Town & Country Road, Suite 34
Orange, California 92868
714-973-8383
§ William A Kunzman, P.E.
§ Chris Pylant, Associate
6.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted
None
References
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 88
6.3 – References
1 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System: Los Angeles County.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm [October 2016]
2 City of Rosemead. Draft General Plan Program EIR (SCH#2007111090). July 31, 2008
3 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System: Los Angeles County.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm [October 2016]
4 City of Rosemead. Draft General Plan Program EIR (SCH#2007111090). July 31, 2008
5 California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/los10.pdf [November 2015]
6 California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Program. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/ [October 2016]
7 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 1993
8 California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties,
and the State. May 1, 2016
9 United States Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010
for Rosemead, California. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
[October 2016]
10 Kunzman Associates. 1151 San Gabriel Boulevard Project Focused Traffic Study. October 12, 2016
11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html [October 2016]
12 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. RareFind 5 Database.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp [October 2016]
13 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
[October 2016]
14 California Department of Fish and Game. Natural Community Conservation Planning.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/nccp/ [October 2016]
15 California State Department of Conservation. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps.
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm [October 2016]
16 City of Rosemead. Draft General Plan Program EIR (SCH#2007111090). July 31, 2008
17 State of California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazards Zones Map. El Monte
Quadrangle. March 25, 1999
18 State of California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazards Zones Map. El Monte
Quadrangle. March 25, 1999
19 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming and Climate
Change. Back to Basics. April 2009.
20 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA and Climate Change. January 2008
21 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group. Meeting # 15, Main
Presentation. September 28, 2010
22 Ibid
23 Ibid
24 California Environmental Protection Agency. Cortese List Data Resources.
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ [October 2016]
25 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp
July 2016]
26 California State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ [October 2016]
References
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 89
27 California State Water Resources Control Board. Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste
Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/CurrentList.pdf [October
2016]
28 California State Water Resources Control Board. List of Active CDO and CAO.
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/CDOCAOList.xlsx [October 2016]
29 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a).
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/SectionA.htm#Facilities [October 2016]
30 Federal Aviation Administration. Airport Data and Contact Information.
http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/ [October 2016]
31 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones In LRA – Los Angeles
County. September 2011.
32 City of Rosemead. Draft General Plan Program EIR (SCH#2007111090). July 31, 2008
33 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Map Number 06037C1665F. September 26,
2008.
34 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Map Number 06037C1665F. September 26,
2008.
35 City of Rosemead. Draft General Plan Program EIR (SCH#2007111090). July 31, 2008
36 City of Rosemead. Draft General Plan Program EIR (SCH#2007111090) – Appendix A (Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study). July 31, 2008
37 California Department of Transportation. Basics of Highway Noise: Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009.
38 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines. 2003
39 City of Rosemead. Municipal Code.
40 United States Bureau of Mines. Mining Machinery Noise Control Guidelines. 1983
41 United States Bureau of Mines. Noise Abatement Techniques for Construction Equipment. August 1979
42 Sound Seal. Sound Seal Sound Curtains Exterior Grade Noise Control. http://www.soundcurtains.com/exterior-grade-
noise-control.pdf [September 2016]
43 California Department of Transportation. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. June
2004
44 Federal Aviation Administration. Airport Data and Contact Information.
http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/ [October 2016]
45 California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. Report E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties,
and the State. May 1, 2016
46 United States Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010
for Rosemead, California. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
[October 2016]
47 The Brookings Institute. Handbook for Applying the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. 1999.
48 San Gabriel Valley Water Company Los Angeles Country Division. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. July 2016.
49 California Environmental Protection Agency. State Water Resources Control Board. Water Conservation Portal –
Emergency Conservation Regulation. Urban Water Suppliers and Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use
Reduction.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/docs/emergency_regulations/supplier_tiers_
20150428.pdf [October 2016]
50 CalRecycle. Identify Disposal Facility Capacity Shortfalls. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/FacIT/facility/disposalgap.aspx
[October 2016]
References
Lawrence and Orange (13533) 90
ð