HomeMy Public PortalAbout9A Request for Zone Change & CUP to Construct a 75,000 square foot commercial retail shopping ctr called Gateway.AGENDA
ITEM 9.A.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 15, 2011
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Jose E. Pulido, City Manager By: Joseph M. Lambert, Com unity
ty Development Manag
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 75,000 SQUARE
FOOT COMMERCIAL RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER CALLED THE
GATEWAY. THE PROPOSED PROJECT INVOLVES A ZONE
CHANGE FROM MUZ (MIXED -USE) TO C-2 (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL), AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A SHOPPING CENTER HAVING TWO OR MORE UNITS
AND MORE THAN 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council is requested to:
a) Introduce Ordinance No. 11-944 approving a Zone Change (ZC 09-1741) for first
reading by title only;
b) Waive further reading of Ordinance No. 11-944;
c) Review draft Resolution No. 11-4735 for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP
11-1778) at the next regular meeting; and
d) Review draft Resolution No. 11-4736 to adopt a Subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the proposed project at the next regular meeting.
BACKGROUND:
1. On February 22, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution
recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change 09-1741, Conditional
Use Permit 11-1778, and adopt a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the proposed project.
City Council
March 15, 2011
Page 2
2. In 2006, the City Council approved a Zone Change and Development Agreement
for the mixed -use project known as the Piazza Las Tunas. In addition, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration was adopted for this project. The Piazza Las Tunas project
included 52 residential condominium units, 65,600 square feet of Specialty Retail,
32,000 square feet of Retail, 19,000 square feet of dine -in restaurant space, an
8,000 square foot Banquet Hall, and a parking structure. In total, that project
included approximately 124,600 square feet of commercial space, approximately
52,000 square feet of residential space, and a seven level parking structure with
approximately 650 parking spaces.
As part of the 2006 Piazza Las Tunas approval, the subject site was rezoned from
General Commercial (C-2) to Mixed -Use (MUZ). The applicant never initiated the
2006 Piazza Las Tunas approval and the Development Agreement from 2006 is
now null and void. All of the buildings on the site have been demolished, and the
site is currently vacant. The buildings that were demolished included a 20,879
square foot movie theater constructed in 1982 and an adjacent 10,804 square foot
multiple tenant commercial building constructed in 1960.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
At this time, the applicant has applied for a Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit to
build a 75,000 square foot commercial shopping center. The Zone Change is
necessary to change the zoning from Mixed -Use (MUZ) back to the original
General Commercial (C-2) zoning. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is
required to construct a shopping center having two or more units and more than thirty
thousand (30,000) square feet of lot area. Regarding the Conditional Use Permit, staff
has included 49 conditions of approval in draft Resolution No. 11-4735 which set forth
the project parameters, mitigation measures, and constraints.
As proposed by the applicant, the new all -commercial project, now called "The
Gateway", would consist of a total of 75,000 square feet of commercial space.
Compared to the 2006 -approved project, the current project's square footage has been
significantly reduced from approximately 124,600 square feet of commercial space and
52,000 square feet of residential condominium space.
As currently proposed, The Gateway would consist of four buildings and includes
approximately: 49,500 square feet of retail space, 14,500 square feet of office space,
and 11,000 square feet of restaurant uses. A total of 331 parking spaces will be
provided in both surface and underground parking. The four buildings vary in size, as
illustrated in the following chart:
City Council
March 15, 2011
Page 3
Buildin g
Breakdown of s.f. by use
i Total Commercial
s.f.
A
35,000 s.f. Regional Supermarket (or big
box retail use)
2,800 s.f. Retail
2,800 s.f. Office
40,600 s.f.
B
11,700 s.f. Specialty Retail
11,700 s.f. Office (2"d floor)
23,400 s.f.
C
4,500 s.f. Restaurant
4,500 s.f.
D
6,500 s.f. Restaurant
6,500 s.f.
"Specialty Retail" could include future smaller restaurant
spaces within Building B
75,000 s.f.
ANALYSIS:
The overall building design features an "Elegant Mediterranean" architectural style.
Staff has worked with the applicant to further enhance the elevations by including
decorative stone veneer, metal canopies, arched window openings, and colonnade
features. The exterior materials will include various stucco finishes, stone/brick
accents, veneer materials, rich color tones and Mediterranean style red tile roofing
material.
One prominent feature of the project is the tower element flanked by two restaurants
and an outdoor plaza at the corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive. The
outdoor plaza features a dining patio, several decorative elements and significant
landscaping. The outdoor plaza and landscaping will be designed to transition to the
intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive, integrating the public
sidewalk with the project site. In fact, the outdoor plaza and overall landscaping will be
designed to integrate with the improvements proposed as part of the Rosemead
Boulevard Safety Enhancement and Beautification Project. Conditions of approval are
in place to ensure compliance in this regard.
Vehicular access to the site and parking lot would be taken from Elm Avenue (via
Rosemead Boulevard) and from Las Tunas Drive. A driveway is also proposed adjacent
to Sultana Avenue, but this driveway is intended for delivery truck access. Temple City
Municipal Code Section 9291 establishes the number of parking spaces required for
each use. The proposed project includes a total of 331 on -site parking spaces,
exceeding the code requirement of 300 spaces, resulting in a surplus of 31 spaces.
129 spaces would be accommodated within a surface lot, while 202 spaces would be
accommodated within an underground level. Based on this, the proposed 331 on -site
parking spaces would appear to provide more than adequate parking.
City Council
March 15, 2011
Page 4
The proposed project complies with the provisions of the C-2 zone regarding height,
setbacks, and land use. The maximum building height for the project is 39 feet,
although the tower element adjacent to the corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Las
Tunas Drive is 52 feet tall. As this tower is an architectural feature, it is not considered
part of the overall building height. Most of the building elevations are between 22 feet
and 33 feet in height. Although there is no height limit in the C-2 zone, a building over
45 feet tall requires a Site Plan Review, which is part of this approval.
The attached Initial Study and draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
includes an inventory of mitigation measures (pages 5-1 thru 5-4) that would reduce the
identified impacts to a less than significant level. If the Subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration were adopted by the City Council, the mitigation measures as listed would
be implemented by the Mitigation Monitoring Program (pages 6-1 thru 6-5). Staff has
also included the mitigation measures into the Draft Resolution approving the
Conditional Use Permit.
At this time, staff recommends that the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 11-944
approving a Zone Change (ZC 09-1741) for first reading by title only. Staff
recommends that the City Council review draft Resolution No. 11-4735 to approve a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 11-1778) and review draft Resolution No. 11-4736 to adopt
a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. However, staff
recommends that the City Council adopt these two Resolutions at the same meeting
when the second reading of Ordinance No. 11-944 occurs.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed project combines a mix of retail, restaurant, and office uses. The project
should promote increased pedestrian activity, will provide shopping and dining
opportunities for the community at large. The potential increased commercial activity
and pedestrian activity could enhance the vitality of businesses located near this main
commercial node within the City. The Planning Commission recommended that the
City Council approve the requested Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit, and also
recommended that the City Council adopt a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the proposed project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This item does not have an impact on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-11 City Budget.
City Council
March 15, 2011
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Ordinance No. 11-944 approving ZC 09-1741
B. Draft Resolution No. 11-4735 approving CUP 11-1778
C. Draft Resolution No. 11-4736 adopting a Subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the proposed project.
D. Resolution No. 11.2323 PC
E. Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated February 22, 2011
F. Application Materials
G. Reduced Project Plans
H. Vicinity Map
I. Zoning Map
J. Aerial Photograph
ENCLOSURES:
1. Notice of Intent, Draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial
Study and Appendices thereto
2. Project Plans date stamped February 17, 2011
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. 11-944
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE (ZC 09-1741)
FROM MUZ (MIXED -USE) TO C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AT
9021 LAS TUNAS DRIVE & 5770 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD, AND
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THIS CITY ACCORDINGLY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Based upon information presented in a Staff Report dated March 15, 2011,
Planning Commission Resolution No. 11-2323 PC, and based upon a Public Hearing by this City Council
on March 15, 2011 to consider such a Zone Change, the following findings are made:
1.The General Plan designation of the subject site is Commercial, which is consistent
with the proposed C-2 (General Commercial) zoning of the site; and
2.The proposed Zone Change to C-2 is appropriate in this more urbanized portion of the
City, located on primary streets in proximity to major transportation corridors. The
project site is arguably within the most urbanized portion of the City at one of the main
commercial nodes in the City (Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive). The site
is appropriate for commercial development of the nature proposed by the applicant;
and
3. This site was zoned C-2 (General Commercial) prior to the 2006 action which
changed the zoning to Mixed -Use; and
4. The project site is within "Block D" of the Rosemead Boulevard Redevelopment
Project Area. The Gateway all -commercial project as proposed by the applicant
would further the overall intent of the Rosemead Boulevard Redevelopment Project
Area plan in that it would feature a variety of commercial uses which are identified as
desirable in the Redevelopment Plan.
SECTION 2. This project should result in no significant effects upon the environment, a
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this Zone Change (ZC 09-1741) and
the related Conditional Use Permit (CUP 11-1778) and the City Council hereby adopts a Subsequent
Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, as set forth in City Council
Resolution No. 11-4736. The initial statement as prepared indicates that there is no potential for adverse
impact to the environment as it relates to all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians and related
ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability.
SECTION 3. Based upon the above findings, the City Council hereby adopts the requested Zone
Change (ZC 09-1741), rezoning 9021 Las Tunas Drive & 5770 Rosemead Boulevard from MUZ (Mixed -
Use) To C-2 (General Commercial) and amending the Zone Map of the City accordingly.
SECTION 4. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance and re -zoning is
consistent with the adopted General Plan of the City as specifically set forth in Resolution NO. 00-3969 on
November 7, 2000, and is consistent with the overall intent of the Rosemead Boulevard Redevelopment
Project Area plan.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and to its
approval by the Mayor. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause this Ordinance to be published
within fifteen (15) days after its passage in a newspaper of general circulation and circulated within the
City in accordance with Government Code § 36933(a) or, to cause this Ordinance to be published in the
manner required by law using the alternative summary and posting procedure authorized under
Government Code § 36933(c).
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 5th day of April, 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
I, City Clerk of the City of Temple City, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance, Ordinance
No. 11-944, was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temple City held on
the 15th day of March, 2011 and was duly passed, approved and adopted by said Council at their regular
meeting held on the 5`h day of April, 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember-
NOES: Councilmember-
ABSENT: Councilmember-
ABSTAIN: Councilmember-
City Clerk
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 11-4735
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 11-1778) TO
CONSTRUCT A 75,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL RETAIL
SHOPPING CENTER CALLED THE GATEWAY PLAZA. THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A
SHOPPING CENTER HAVING TWO OR MORE UNITS, MORE THAN
THIRTY THOUSAND (30,000) SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA. THE
APPROVED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY
49,500 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE, 14,500 SQUARE
FEET OF OFFICE SPACE, AND 11,000 SQUARE FEET OF
RESTAURANT SPACE. (T.C.D. ENTERPRISE, INC./HOWARD
POYOUROW) (CUP 11-1778)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. Based upon information contained in the staff reports to the City Council and
information contained in the Planning Commission staff report as well as the Planning Commission minutes;
and based upon testimony received at a noticed public hearing before the City Council on March 15, 2011,
the City Council approves the requested Conditional Use Permit, based upon based upon the following
findings:
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size, shape, topography and circumstances in
that the site contains 159,521 square feet of land area, which is adequate for the proposed
75,000 square foot commercial shopping center. The proposed project includes a total of 331
on -site parking spaces, exceeding the code requirement of 300 spaces, resulting in a surplus
of 31 parking spaces; and
2. That the site does have sufficient access to streets, adequate in width and pavement type to
carry the quantity and quality of the traffic generated by the proposed use in that the site is
accessed by Elm Avenue (via Rosemead Boulevard) from Las Tunas Drive, and from Sultana
Avenue. Both Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive is a "primary roads" as identified
by the City's General Plan, which will have the capacity to carry the quantities of the traffic
that will be generated by the proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon the use, enjoyment or valuation
of adjacent or neighboring properties or upon the public welfare in that the proposed
development is consistent with its land use designation and the conditions of approval and
mitigation measures listed for this project will be more than adequate to address any
perceived impacts to the surrounding neighborhood.
SECTION 2. This project should result in no significant effects upon the environment, a
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this Conditional Use Permit (CUP 11-
1778) and the related Zone Change (ZC 09-1741) and the City Council hereby adopts a Subsequent
Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, as set forth in City Council
Resolution No. 11-4736. The initial statement as prepared indicates that there is no potential for adverse
impact to the environment as it relates to all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians and related
ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability..
SECTION 3. Accordingly, Conditional Use Permit 11-1778 is hereby approved, subject to the
following conditions:
1. This Conditional Use Permit (CUP 11-1778) shall not be valid until the related Zone Change
(ZC 09-1741) adopted by Ordinance No. 11-944 is approved and in effect.
Resolution No. 11-4735
The Gateway
Page 2
2. The proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the submitted plans date
stamped February 17, 2011.
3. The property shall be consistently maintained and kept free of weeds, trash, debris,
abandoned vehicles, vacated equipment, etc. to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Department.
4. No commercial unit in the Center shall have less than 800 square feet of gross floor area.
5. Any business wishing to obtain a State License from Alcohol Beverage Control shall be
subject to a separate Conditional Use Permit from the City.
6. The underground parking structure shall be lighted to the satisfaction of the City of Temple
City Community Development Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department and Los
Angeles County Sheriffs Department.
7. A detailed Master Sign Program program shall be submitted prior to issuance of building
permits for all individual tenant exterior signage. No "canned" signs shall be allowed at the
project site. All onsite signage shall be in compliance with the City's sign ordinance. All
signage reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department shall require
appropriate Building permits and approvals by the Community Development Department.
8. Security in the underground parking structure shall be provided as may be required by the
Sheriff and Fire Departments as well as by the Community Development Department of
Temple City. As a minimum, there shall be one full time security person and sufficient video
cameras to monitor the facilities at all times.
9. Bicycle racks, bicycle lockers, and other bicycle facilities shall be provided to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Department.
10. Any graffiti or acts of vandalism shall be removed or repaired within 24 hours.
11. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect shall be
submitted and approved by the Community Development Director or his designee prior to the
issuance of building permits. Said landscaping shall be continuously maintained. Additional
landscaping and design features shall be incorporated into the landscaped area between the
parking lot and southerly property line to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director or his designee.
12. Additional landscape, hardscape, public seating, and water features shall be included in the
final detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
13. The timing and ingress and egress points of construction of all onsite and offsite
improvements shall be coordinated with the City of Temple City to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
14. Street trees and parkway landscaping shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director and Parks and Recreation Director.
15. All proposed trash enclosures shall be covered with a solid decorative roof structure to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Manager or his designee.
16. The conditions of approval contained in this Resolution may be enforced by the Sheriff's
Office as well as by City staff. Any violation of any condition is a misdemeanor and may be
processed directly by criminal complaint. The indemnity and enforcement provisions of the
Resolution No. 11-4735
The Gateway
Page 3
Conditional Use Permit shall also be enforced as set forth therein.
17. The installation of lights for the parking lot shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Department; and any such installation shall include light shields to minimize glare
affecting the surrounding residential neighborhood.
18. All proposed mechanical equipment should be screened from public view at all times. The
location of such equipment shall be approved by the Community Development Department.
19. Ail activities and functions at the site shall be subject to the City's noise Ordinance. Any
violation of the City's noise Ordinance as contained in Sections 9280 to 9282.1 shall be
grounds for revocation of this Conditional Use Permit.
20. Permits: Provide a plot plan illustrating all of the right-of-way improvements from the
centerline of street(s) to the property line(s). All work in the public right-of-way shall meet
Los Angeles County Public Works Department standards and shall be reviewed by the City's
Public Community Development Director. All permits shall be obtained from the Los Angeles
County Public Works Department prior to commencement of any work in the public right-of-
way.
21. All driveways serving the new commercial building shall be constructed to the satisfaction of
the City's Traffic Engineer, the City's Community Development Director and Los Angeles
County Public Works. All required signage shall be continuously maintained by the property
owner.
22. Curb, Gutters, Sidewalks: Replace and/or upgrade driveway aprons, as may be required by
the City's Community Development Director and the Los Angeles County Public Works
Division. Driveways to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter, and/or
sidewalk. Repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement on streets
within or abutting the subject property.
23. Surface Drainage: Provide all facilities necessary to accommodate contributory runoff and all
surface drainage from the subject property and conduct it into appropriate storm drain
facilities. No runoff shall be allowed to drain across a sidewalk. A drainage plan is required
for the proposed project to address the above -mentioned concerns. Onsite drainage shall
be contained onsite to the extent feasible utilizing biofiltration or similar system within the
proposed parking lot. The landscaped areas in the parking lot shall serve as biofiltration
devices.
24. Sewers: Provide sewer main and lateral improvements as required by the City's Community
Development Director.
25. Underground Utilities: All utilities shall be provided underground from a primary service point in
the public right-of-way or on a rear property line, to service panels or facilities on buildings. Prior to
issuance of building permits, provide to the City's Community Development Director a detailed
utility plan for review and approval showing all utility pipes, wires and conduits and their respective
points of connection. All water meters shall be located outside of the sidewalk.
Resolution No. 11-4735
The Gateway
Page 4
26. Disposal of Construction Waste: No construction activity waste material of any kind, including
plaster, cement, paint, mud, or any other type of debris or liquid shall be allowed to be disposed of
in the street or gutter, storm drain or sewer system. All debris spills shall be removed daily and the
subject site shall use necessary dust control measures. Failure to comply with this condition will
result in charges being filed with the District Attorney. (TCMC 3400-3411)
27. Solid Waste Management: Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, provide a written report
to the City's Community Development Director showing description and quantity by weight of all
construction and demolition debris, and method and location of disposal. Solid waste includes
asphalt, concrete, brick, sand, earth, wood, plaster, drywall, paper, cardboard, wire, plastic, etc.
Total quantities and general categories are required for all waste material, including weight tickets.
28. Stormwater Pollution: The property owner shall meet all requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) related to pollutants, runoff or non-
stormwater discharges (TCMC 8100-8405). The applicant shall receive approval from the
City's Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan Consultant.
29. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire 24 months from the date of approval if said approval
is not exercised within that time. If the project is not commenced prior to the expiration date,
the applicant may apply in writing for an extension of time at least forty (40) days before the
expiration date.
30. The building construction plans shall include a blue -line sheet(s) showing each page of this
Resolution including all conditions of approval contained herein.
31. This Resolution shall not become valid until such time that the applicant and property owner
has signed a copy of the Resolution acknowledging acceptance of the Conditions of Approval.
The following conditions are mitigation measures, which are also included in the related
Initial Study/ Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration documents. Said mitigation
measures (along with any amendments) shall be incorporated into a Mitigation Monitoring
Program prepared by the applicant in accordance with the provisions of CEQA.
AESTHETICS
32. To mitigate the adverse aesthetic impact on residences immediately north of the project site
created by the north wall of Building A and the block wall adjacent to the northerly property
tine, the applicant/developer will be required to pursue one or more of the following options,
at the direction of the City:
A. Design and construct a series of appropriately scaled arches that cover the length of the
north wall of Building A.
B. Install and maintain a "green screen" on and/or vine pockets adjacent to the block wall on
the northerly property line. The landscaping shall be planted with evergreen vines or similar
landscaping trained to grow up the wall.
C. Install and maintain vines or similar vertical landscaping at the base of the north wall of
Building A. The landscaping shall be of a variety that discourages trespass and access to the
wall, and that is attractive and evergreen.
Resolution No. 11-4735
The Gateway
Page 5
D. The design and treatment of the north wall and Building A and the block wall adjacent to
the northerly property line shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Director
prior to issuance of building permits on the project action on the project.
AIR QUALITY
33. For the demolition phase of construction, the applicantlpermittee shall use a lean- NOX
catalyst on both on -and off -road diesel equipment to reduce NOX emissions.
34. For the building construction phase of construction, the applicant/permittee shall use cooled
exhaust gas recirculation on both on -and off -road diesel equipment to reduce NOX
emissions.
35. The developer shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) content architectural
coatings during the construction of the project and in accordance with SCAQMD regulations
and guidelines.
36. All restaurant owners and/or operators shall be required to install emissions and odor control
devices required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and as applicable, Los
Angeles County Health Department regulations. Such systems shall be installed and
operable prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any such restaurant.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
37. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be employed during all site preparation,
demolition, grading, and construction to ensure that all soil erosion and deposition are
contained within the construction site. Such BMPs may include, but are not limited to,
covering of the graded area or piled soil with straw or straw matting, and use of water for
dust control.
NOISE
38. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. during
the week and 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays. No construction activity shall occur on
holidays or Sundays.
39. All heavy construction equipment and all stationary noise sources such as diesel generators
shall have manufacturer -installed mufflers.
40. The project developer/applicant shall post a telephone number and name of a contact
person for registering comments or complaints regarding construction noise. Such signage
shall be posted in a clearly visible area along Rosemead Boulevard, Las Tunas Drive, and
Sultana Avenue. All complaints shall be given to the City Planning Department on a daily
basis.
41. Truck deliveries shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.
42. All mechanical equipment shall be acoustically shielded to levels that achieve the noise/land
use compatibility criteria set forth in the City's General Plan Noise Element.
43. A 9 -foot -high block wall shall be erected along the north property line, extending from the
northeast corner of the project site west along the property line past Myda Avenue and west
Resolution No. 11.4735
The Gateway
Page 6
to a point coinciding with the edge of the rear of the residence immediately adjacent to Elm
Avenue, as shown on the figure below. The City will coordinate the design of the wall with the
project developer.
44. Signs shall be posted at all parking structure exits cautioning drivers to maintain quiet and
respect neighbors as they leave the site.
45. As part of the conditions of approval, the City shall reserve the right to limit the hours of
operation of the restaurants as a means of reducing on -site noise in response to any
prolonged, documentable evidence of noise conflicts.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
46. Access to delivery truck loading area, and the subterranean parking structure will be
provided via Elm Avenue. Elm Avenue will be striped to provide one inbound lane and one
outbound lane. The Elm Avenue at Rosemead Boulevard driveway will offer full northbound
and southbound inbound access, but will be limited to right -turn only egress. Westbound and
eastbound left turn and through movements will not be allowed. Physical barriers, paint, and
signage will be provided to ensure the intended ingress and egress operations. Also, a 35 -
foot curb return will be provided on the southeast corner of Rosemead Boulevard/Elm
Avenue to facilitate easier right -turns for project traffic (refer to Figure 10 of the Traffic Study
in Appendix D, March 2006 IS/MND).
47. Large truck circulation at site will enter at Sultana Avenue Driveway, back into loading dock,
and exit to Rosemead Boulevard via Elm Avenue.
48. Sultana Avenue striping will remain matching existing conditions. City staff will monitor
potential commercial traffic intrusion into neighborhoods adjacent to the project to determine
if turn restrictions are required exiting the site at the Sultana Avenue Driveway.
49. The Las Tunas Drive curb edge adjacent the project will be coordinated with City
Transportation Department staff to ensure accommodation of westbound vehicle lanes, a
bus stop, and a dedicated right -turn lane at the Rosemead Boulevard/Las Tunas Drive
intersection. Applicant will prepare roadway signing and striping plan on Las Tunas Drive in
the project vicinity for review and approval by City Transportation Department staff.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into
the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 5"' day of April, 2011.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Resolution No. 11-4735
The Gateway
Page 7
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, Resolution No. 11-4735, was duly passed, approved
and adopted by the City Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 5`" day of April,
2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember-
NOES: Councilmember-
ABSENT: Councilmember-
ABSTAIN: Councilmember-
City Clerk
READ, APPROVED AND CONDITIONS ACCEPTED:
TCD Enterprises, LLC Date
Property Owner
Howard Poyourow Date
Applicant
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 11-4736
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM FOR ZC 09-1741 AND CUP 11-1778 - A ZONE CHANGE
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 75,000
SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER
CALLED THE GATEWAY PLAZA. THE PROPOSED PROJECT
INVOLVES A ZONE CHANGE FROM MUZ (MIXED -USE) TO C-2
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL), AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT A SHOPPING CENTER HAVING TWO OR MORE
UNITS AND MORE THAN THIRTY THOUSAND (30,000) SQUARE
FEET OF LOT AREA.
WHEREAS, TCD Enterprises, LLC. and Howard Poyourow have filed ZC 09-1741 and CUP 11-
1778 as required by the City of Temple City Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, ZC 09-1741 and CUP 11-1778 have been submitted to construct a 75,000 square
foot commercial retail shopping center called "The Gateway" project at 9021 Las Tunas Drive,
Temple City, CA 91780, APN: 5387-013-031; and,
WHEREAS, an Initial Study, proposed Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and proposed
Mitigation Monitoring Program have been prepared regarding this project for consideration by the City
Council; and,
WHEREAS, in light of the evidence that the project, as originally proposed, may have a significant
effect on the environment as identified in the Initial Study, the applicant has agreed to revisions in the
project plan and/or mitigation measures that will be imposed as conditions of approval on the project and
are intended to mitigate any potential substantial effects identified in the Initial Study to a point where
clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur; and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Notice of Intent to adopt a Subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration which on February 17, 2011 was mailed to such responsible and trustee agencies as
required; filed with the Clerk for the County of Los Angeles for posting; and provided to members of the
public using a method permitted under CEQA Guidelines Section 15072(b); and,
WHEREAS, the draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program, including the Initial Study and supporting documentation, were circulated and made available
for a twenty (20) day public review period that commenced on February 22, 2011 and ended on March
15, 2011. During the public review period, the City received one written comments concerning the draft
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly -noticed public hearing on March 15, 2011 to
consider the Initial Study; proposed Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration; proposed Mitigation
Monitoring Program, and application for the project at which hearing members of the public were afforded
an opportunity to comment upon the project.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DOES RESOLVE,
DETERMINE, FIND AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: CEQA FINDINGS.
The Temple City City Council hereby finds, based on consideration of the whole record before it; including
the City's local CEQA Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance; the Initial Study and documents
incorporated therein; the proposed Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration; proposed Mitigation
Monitoring Program; comments received thereon; and testimony heard at the public hearing, as follows:
Resolution No. 11-4736
Page 2 of 3
1. Review Period: That the City has provided the public review period for the Subsequent Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the duration required under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15073 and
15105; and
2. Compliance with Law: That the initial Study, Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program were prepared, processed, and noticed in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA
Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) and the local CEQA
Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance adopted by the City of Temple City; and
3. Independent Judgment: That the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the City; and
4. Mitigation Monitoring Program: The monitoring program is designed to ensure compliance during
project implementation in that changes to the project andlor mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the project and are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or
other measures as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
5. No Significant Effect: That revisions made to the project plans agreed to by the applicant and/or
mitigation measures imposed as conditions of approval on the project, avoid or mitigate any
potential significant effects on the environment identified in the Initial Study to a point where
clearly no significant effects on the environment will occur and there is no substantial evidence
that the project, as proposed and conditioned, will have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 2: WILDLIFE RESOURCES.
Pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulation Section 753.5(c), the City Council has determined,
based on consideration of the whole record before it, that there is no evidence that the proposed project
will have the potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Furthermore, on the basis of substantial evidence, the City Council hereby finds that any
presumption of adverse impact has adequately been rebutted. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game
Code Section 711.4(c)(2)(B) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5.(a)(3), the project
is not required to pay Fish and Game Department filing fees.
SECTION 3: LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS.
The Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and
Notice of Determination are on file and available for public review at Temple City City Hall, 9701 Las
Tunas Drive, Temple City, California 91780. The Director of Community Development is the custodian of
these documents.
SECTION 4. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS.
The City Council hereby takes the following actions:
1. Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration: The Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for
ZC 09-1741 and CUP 11-1778 is hereby adopted and certified.
2. Mitigation Monitoring Program: The Mitigation Monitoring Program for ZC 09-1741 and CUP 11-
1778 is hereby approved.
3. Notice of Determination: The Director of Community Development is directed to prepare and file
with the Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, a Notice of Determination as provided under Public
Resources Code Section 21152 and CEQA Guidelines 15075.
Resolution No. 11-4736
Page 3of3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 5th DAY OF APRIL 2011,
Mayor
ATTEST*
City Clerk
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, Resolution No. 11-4736, was adopted by the City Council
of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of April 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember-
NOES: Councilmember-
ABSENT: Councilmember-
ABSTAIN: Councilmember-
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 11-2323 PC
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING PROJECT TO THE CITY
COUNCIL: ZC 09-1741 AND CUP 11-1778 - A ZONE CHANGE AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 75,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL
RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER CALLED THE GATEWAY PLAZA. THE
PROPOSED PROJECT INVOLVES A ZONE CHANGE FROM MUZ (MIXED -
USE) TO C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL), AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT A SHOPPING CENTER HAVING TWO OR MORE UNITS AND
MORE THAN THIRTY THOUSAND (30,000) SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA. THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 49,500
SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE, 14,500 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE
SPACE, AND 11,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT SPACE. (T.C.D.
ENTERPRISE, INC.! HOWARD POYOUROW) (ZC 09-1741 AND CUP 11-1778)
The Planning Commission of the City of Temple City does hereby resolve:
SECTION 1. Based upon information presented in a Staff Report dated
February 22, 2011, and based upon a Public Hearing on February 22, 2011 to
consider a Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission
makes the following findings:
Zone Change:
1. The General Plan designation of the subject site is Commercial, which
is consistent with the proposed C-2 (General Commercial) zoning of
the site; and
2. The proposed Zone Change to C-2 is appropriate in this more
urbanized portion of the City, located on primary streets in proximity to
major transportation corridors. The project site is arguably within the
most urbanized portion of the City at one of the main commercial
nodes in the City (Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive). The
site is appropriate for commercial development of the nature proposed
by the applicant; and
3. This site was zoned C-2 (General Commercial) prior to the 2006
action which changed the zoning to Mixed -Use; and
4. The project site is within "Block D" of the Redevelopment Project Area.
The Gateway all -commercial project as proposed by the applicant
would further the overall intent of the Redevelopment Plan in that it
would feature a variety of commercial uses which are identified as
desirable in the Redevelopment Plan.
Resolution No. 11-2323 PC
The Gateway
Page 2 of 9
Conditional Use Permit:
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size, shape, topography and
circumstances in that the site contains 159,521 square feet of land area, which
is adequate for the proposed 75,000 square foot commercial shopping center.
The proposed project includes a total of 331 on -site parking spaces,
exceeding the code requirement of 300 spaces, resulting in a surplus of 31
parking spaces; and
2. That the site does have sufficient access to streets, adequate in width and
pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of the traffic generated by the
proposed use in that the site is accessed by Elm Avenue (via Rosemead
Boulevard) from Las Tunas Drive, and from Sultana Avenue. Both Rosemead
Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive is a "primary roads" as identified by the
City's General Plan, which will have the capacity to carry the quantities of the
traffic that will be generated by the proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon the use,
enjoyment or valuation of adjacent or neighboring properties or upon the
public welfare in that the proposed development is consistent with its land
use designation and the conditions of approval and mitigation measures
listed for this project will be more than adequate to address any perceived
impacts to the surrounding neighborhood.
SECTION 2. This project should result in no significant effects upon the
environment, a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared, and
the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt said Subsequent
Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. The
initial statement as prepared indicates that there is no potential for adverse impact to
the environment as it relates to all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians and
related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife
depends for its continued viability.
SECTION 3. Based upon the above findings, the Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council adopts the Subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration and recommends that the City Council approves the requested Zone
Change (ZC 09-1741) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP 11-1778), based upon the
following conditions:
1. The proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the submitted plans
date stamped February 17, 2011.
2. The property shall be consistently maintained and kept free of weeds, trash, debris,
abandoned vehicles, vacated equipment, etc. to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Department.
Resolution No. 11-2323 PC
The Gateway
Page 3 of 9
3. No commercial unit in the Center shall have less than 800 square feet of gross
floor area.
4. Any business wishing to obtain a State License from Alcohol Beverage Control
shall be subject to a separate Conditional Use Permit from the City.
5. The underground parking structure shall be lighted to the satisfaction of the City of
Temple City Community Development Department, Los Angeles County Fire
Department and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
6. A detailed Master Sign Program program shall be submitted prior to issuance of
building permits for all individual tenant exterior signage. No "canned" signs shall be
allowed at the project site. All onsite signage shall be in compliance with the City's
sign ordinance. All signage reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Department shall require appropriate Building permits and approvals by the
Community Development Department.
7. Security in the underground parking structure shall be provided as may be required by
the Sheriff and Fire Departments as well as by the Community Development
Department of Temple City. As a minimum, there shall be one full time security person
and sufficient video cameras to monitor the facilities at all times.
8. Bicycle racks, bicycle lockers, and other bicycle facilities shall be provided to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Department.
9. Any graffiti or acts of vandalism shall be removed or repaired within 24 hours.
10. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect
shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director or his
designee prior to the issuance of building permits. Said landscaping shall be
continuously maintained. Additional landscaping and design features shall be
incorporated into the landscaped area between the parking lot and southerly property
line to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or his designee.
11. Additional landscape, hardscape, public seating, and water features shall be included
in the final detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
12. The timing and ingress and egress points of construction of all onsite and offsite
improvements shall be coordinated with the City of Temple City to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director.
13. Street trees and parkway landscaping shall be provided to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director and Parks and Recreation Director.
Resolution No. 11-2323 PC
The Gateway
Page 4 of 9
14. All proposed trash enclosures shall be covered with a solid decorative roof structure to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Manager or his designee.
15. The conditions of approval contained in this Resolution may be enforced by the
Sheriffs Office as well as by City staff. Any violation of any condition is a
misdemeanor and may be processed directly by criminal complaint. The indemnity
and enforcement provisions of the Conditional Use Permit shall also be enforced
as set forth therein.
16. The installation of lights for the parking lot shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Department; and any such installation shall include light
shields to minimize glare affecting the surrounding residential neighborhood.
17. All proposed mechanical equipment should be screened from public view at all times.
The location of such equipment shall be approved by the Community Development
Department.
18. All activities and functions at the site shall be subject to the City's noise Ordinance.
Any violation of the City's noise Ordinance as contained in Sections 9280 to 9282.1
shall be grounds for revocation of this Conditional Use Permit.
19. Permits: Provide a plot plan illustrating all of the right-of-way improvements from the
centerline of street(s) to the property line(s). All work in the public right-of-way shall
meet Los Angeles County Public Works Department standards and shall be reviewed
by the City's Public Community Development Director. All permits shall be obtained
from the Los Angeles County Public Works Department prior to commencement of any
work in the public right-of-way.
20. All driveways serving the new commercial building shall be constructed to the
satisfaction of the City's Traffic Engineer, the City's Community Development Director
and Los Angeles County Public Works. All required signage shall be continuously
maintained by the property owner.
21.Curb, Gutters, Sidewalks: Replace and/or upgrade driveway aprons, as may be
required by the City's Community Development Director and the Los Angeles County
Public Works Division. Driveways to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard
curb, gutter, and/or sidewalk. Repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk,
and pavement on streets within or abutting the subject property.
22.Surface Drainage: Provide all facilities necessary to accommodate contributory
runoff and all surface drainage from the subject property and conduct it into
appropriate storm drain facilities. No runoff shall be allowed to drain across a
sidewalk. A drainage plan is required for the proposed project to address the above -
mentioned concerns. Onsite drainage shall be contained onsite to the extent
feasible utilizing biofiltration or similar system within the proposed parking lot. The
Resolution No. 11-2323 PC
The Gateway
Page 5 of 9
landscaped areas in the parking lot shall serve as biofiltration devices.
23. Sewers: Provide sewer main and lateral improvements as required by the City's
Community Development Director.
24. Underground Utilities: All utilities shall be provided underground from a primary service
point in the public right-of-way or on a rear property line, to service panels or facilities on
buildings. Prior to issuance of building permits, provide to the City's Community
Development Director a detailed utility plan for review and approval showing all utility
pipes, wires and conduits and their respective points of connection. All water meters
shall be located outside of the sidewalk.
25. Disposal of Construction Waste: No construction activity waste material of any kind,
including plaster, cement, paint, mud, or any other type of debris or liquid shall be
allowed to be disposed of in the street or gutter, storm drain or sewer system. All debris
spills shall be removed daily and the subject site shall use necessary dust control
measures. Failure to comply with this condition will result in charges being filed with the
District Attorney. (TCMC 3400-3411)
26.Solid Waste Management: Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, provide a
written report to the City's Community Development Director showing description and
quantity by weight of all construction and demolition debris, and method and location of
disposal. Solid waste includes asphalt, concrete, brick, sand, earth, wood, plaster,
drywall, paper, cardboard, wire, plastic, etc. Total quantities and general categories are
required for all waste material, including weight tickets.
27. Stormwater Pollution: The property owner shall meet all requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) related to pollutants, runoff or non-
stormwater discharges (TCMC 8100-8405). The applicant shall receive approval from
the City's Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan Consultant.
28. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire 24 months from the date of approval if said
approval is not exercised within that time. If the project is not commenced prior to the
expiration date, the applicant may apply in writing for an extension of time at least forty
(40) days before the expiration date.
29. The building construction plans shall include a blue -line sheet(s) showing each page of
this Resolution including all conditions of approval contained herein.
30. This Resolution shall not become valid until such time that the applicant and property
owner has signed a copy of the Resolution acknowledging acceptance of the
Conditions of Approval.
Resolution No. 11-2323 PC
The Gateway
Page 6 of 9
The following conditions are mitigation measures, which are also included in the
related initial Study/ Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration documents. Said
mitigation measures (along with any amendments) shall be incorporated into a
Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared by the applicant in accordance with the
provisions of CEQA.
AESTHETICS
31. To mitigate the adverse aesthetic impact on residences immediately north of the
project site created by the north wall of Building A and the block wall adjacent to the
northerly property line, the applicant/developer will be required to pursue one or
more of the following options, at the direction of the City:
A. Design and construct a series of appropriately scaled arches that cover the length
of the north wall of Building A.
B. Install and maintain a "green screen" on and/or vine pockets adjacent to the block
wall on the northerly property line. The landscaping shall be planted with
evergreen vines or similar landscaping trained to grow up the wall.
C. Install and maintain vines or similar vertical landscaping at the base of the north
wall of Building A. The landscaping shall be of a variety that discourages trespass
and access to the wall, and that is attractive and evergreen.
D. The design and treatment of the north wall and Building A and the block wall
adjacent to the northerly property line shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Community Director prior to issuance of building permits on the project action on
the project.
AIR QUALITY
32. For the demolition phase of construction, the applicant/permittee shall use a lean-
NOX catalyst on both on -and off -road diesel equipment to reduce NOX emissions.
33. For the building construction phase of construction, the applicant/permittee shall use
cooled exhaust gas recirculation on both on -and off -road diesel equipment to reduce
NOX emissions.
34. The developer shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) content
architectural coatings during the construction of the project and in accordance with
SCAQMD regulations and guidelines.
Resolution No. 11-2323 PC
The Gateway
Page 7 of 9
35.AII restaurant owners and/or operators shall be required to install emissions and
odor control devices required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
and as applicable, Los Angeles County Health Department regulations. Such
systems shall be installed and operable prior to the issuance of occupancy permits
for any such restaurant.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
36. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be employed during all site preparation,
demolition, grading, and construction to ensure that all soil erosion and deposition
are contained within the construction site. Such BMPs may include, but are not
limited to, covering of the graded area or piled soil with straw or straw matting, and
use of water for dust control.
NOISE
37.Construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M.
during the week and 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays. No construction activity
shall occur on holidays or Sundays.
38.AII heavy construction equipment and all stationary noise sources such as diesel
generators shall have manufacturer -installed mufflers.
39.The project developer/applicant shall post a telephone number and name of a
contact person for registering comments or complaints regarding construction noise.
Such signage shall be posted in a clearly visible area along Rosemead Boulevard,
Las Tunas Drive, and Sultana Avenue. All complaints shall be given to the City
Planning Department on a daily basis.
40.Truck deliveries shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.
41.AII mechanical equipment shall be acoustically shielded to levels that achieve the
noise/land use compatibility criteria set forth in the City's General Plan Noise
Element.
42.A 9 -foot -high block wall shall be erected along the north property line, extending
from the northeast corner of the project site west along the property line past Myda
Avenue and west to a point coinciding with the edge of the rear of the residence
immediately adjacent to Elm Avenue, as shown on the figure below. The City will
coordinate the design of the wall with the project developer.
43. Signs shall be posted at all parking structure exits cautioning drivers to maintain
quiet and respect neighbors as they leave the site.
Resolution No. 11-2323 PC
The Gateway
Page 8 of 9
44.As part of the conditions of approval, the City shall reserve the right to limit the hours
of operation of the restaurants as a means of reducing on -site noise in response to
any prolonged, documentable evidence of noise conflicts.
TRANS PORTATION/TRAFFIC
45.Access to delivery truck loading area, and the subterranean parking structure will be
provided via Elm Avenue. Elm Avenue will be striped to provide one inbound lane
and one outbound lane. The Elm Avenue at Rosemead Boulevard driveway will offer
full northbound and southbound inbound access, but will be limited to right -turn only
egress. Westbound and eastbound left turn and through movements will not be
allowed. Physical barriers, paint, and signage will be provided to ensure the intended
ingress and egress operations. Also, a 35 -foot curb return will be provided on the
southeast corner of Rosemead Boulevard/Elm Avenue to facilitate easier right -turns
for project traffic (refer to Figure 10 of the Traffic Study in Appendix D, March 2006
IS/MND).
46. Large truck circulation at site will enter at Sultana Avenue Driveway, back into
loading dock, and exit to Rosemead Boulevard via Elm Avenue.
47. Sultana Avenue striping will remain matching existing conditions. City staff will
monitor potential commercial traffic intrusion into neighborhoods adjacent to the
project to determine if turn restrictions are required exiting the site at the Sultana
Avenue Driveway.
48. The Las Tunas Drive curb edge adjacent the project will be coordinated with City
Transportation Department staff to ensure accommodation of westbound vehicle
lanes, a bus stop, and a dedicated right -turn lane at the Rosemead Boulevard/Las
Tunas Drive intersection. Applicant will prepare roadway signing and striping plan on
Las Tunas Drive in the project vicinity for review and approval by City Transportation
Department staff.
Resolution No. 11-2323 PC
The Gateway
Page 9 of 9
SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution,
and forward a copy to the City Council.
Chairman
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 22nd of February
2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner- Chen, Horton, 0' Leary, Seibert
NOES: Commissioner- Valenzuela
ABSENT: Commissioner- None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner- None
Secretary
READ, APPROVED AND CONDITIONS ACCEPTED:
TCD Enterprises, LLC Date
Property Owner
Howard Poyourow Date
Applicant
Planning Commission Minutes
Date of Hearing: February 22, 2011
DRAFT
B. PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBJECT SITE:
A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A 75,000 SQUARE FOOT
COMMERCIAL RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER
CALLED THE GATEWAY. THE PROPOSED
PROJECT INVOLVES A ZONE CHANGE
FROM MUZ (MIXED -USE) TO C-2
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL), AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A SHOPPING CENTER HAVING
TWO OR MORE UNITS AND MORE THAN
THIRTY THOUSAND (30,000) SQUARE FEET OF
LOT AREA. THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF
APPROXIMATELY 49,500 SQUARE FEET
OF RETAIL SPACE, 14,500 SQUARE FEET
OF OFFICE SPACE, AND 11,000 SQUARE
FEET OF RESTAURANT SPACE.
9021 LAS TUNAS DRIVE & 5770 ROSEMEAD
BOULEVARD (NORTHEAST CORNER OF
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD & LAS TUNAS
DRIVE)
CASE NUMBERS: ZONE CHANGE 09-1741
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11-1778
PROPERTY OWNER: TCD ENTERPRISES
1005 E. LAS TUNAS DRIVE #505
SAN GABRIEL, CA 91776
APPLICANT: HOWARD POYOUROW
1772 PALISADES DRIVE
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
ARCHITECT: HTH ARCHITECTS
3767 OVERLAND AVENUE, SUITE 111
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90034
RECOMMENDATION: 1) HEAR STAFF REPORT
2) HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST
3) RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT A SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4) RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Chairman O'Leary — Asked for a Staff Report.
Director of Community Development Masura — Gave a summary of The Gateway project
proposal including that the project was reviewed by the Rosemead Boulevard Safety
Enhancement and Beautification Ad Hoc Committee.
Community Development Manager Lambert — Gave the Staff Report dated February 22, 2011.
Planning Commission Minutes
Date of Hearing: February 22. 2011
Community Development Manager Lambert — Gave the PowerPoint presentation.
Chairman O'Leary — Asked if there were any additional questions from the Planning
Commissioners for the Staff. The Planning Commissioners did not have additional questions or
comments at this time. Invited the applicant to speak. The applicant chose not to speak at this
time. Asked if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or against the proposed
request. Eight people came forth at this time.
Susan Morris, 5818 Rosemead Blvd., Temple City CA 91780 - Stated that she appreciates the
architecture of The Gateway Project, however, is concerned regarding the safety of her family, as
vehicular traffic will increase due to the development of this project. Stated that the lane on
Rosemead Boulevard widens next to her property, in November a motorist struck a fire hydrant on
Rosemead Boulevard, crashed into her property and nearly killed three of her family members.
Stated that Elm Street also is near her property which causes additional safety concerns for her,
and is fearful about the safety of her home and does not want someone in her family to get hurt.
Stated that she would like to know if measures have been taken to ensure the safety of
neighboring residents, and would also like to know if something can be done regarding the exit and
entrance from Rosemead Boulevard. Stated that a family member of hers is highly asthmatic, and
would like to have the dust minimized during construction.
Pete Morris, 5818 Rosemead Blvd., Temple City, CA 91780 — Stated that he would like to echo the
comments that were made by his wife and would like to emphasize that if there is a large increase
of north bound traffic this will be a significant concern for his family. Stated that he is specifically
concerned regarding the traffic that turns onto Rosemead Boulevard from EIm Street.
Chairman O'Leary — Asked Mr. Morris if he resided on property when the theatre was operating as
there was an exit from EIm Street onto Rosemead Boulevard at that time.
Pete Morris, 5818 Rosemead Blvd., Temple City, CA 91780 — Stated that he did not reside at his
current property when the theatre was open.
Sherri Feng, 5801 Myda Ave., Temple City, CA 91780 - Stated that she would like to speak on
behalf of her family who has resided in Temple City for 15 years. Stated that 10 out of the 15 years
they have resided peacefully in conjunction with the cinema, however, when the cinema changed
ownership her family was pushed to sell their property. Stated that 27 years ago, the City
developed a cul-de-sac, otherwise known as Myda Avenue. Stated that the City built an enclosing
wall along 5802 Myda Avenue, per the property owner's request, however, the previous property
owner of her residence did not make the same request. Stated that the driveway on her property is
next to Elm Avenue and she will have trouble backing out of their driveway if trucks are unloading
products for the new businesses. Stated that her Mother visited the City Council to request
permission to have the driveway moved to the front of the property, however, her request was
ignored. Stated that she would like to know why the City would reject her request when they are
willing to pay money to have the driveway moved to the front of the property.
Commissioner Horton - Asked Ms. Feng if she had raised her concerns with City Staff to resolve
her problem.
Resident, 5801 Mvda Ave., Temple City, CA 91780 — Stated that she had collected data from
Temple City Hall and the Los Angeles County Building and Safety office and presented a package
to the City Council to review, however, they did not address her concerns.
Planning Commission Minutes
Date of Hearing. February 22, 2011
Sherri Fenq, 5801 Myda Ave., Temple City, CA 91780 - Stated that her mother was ignored by the
City Council and would like to present three pieces of evidence to the Planning Commission that
would support her request to move her driveway.
Commissioner Horton — Stated that the Planning Commission is not a judiciary body, perhaps Staff
could illuminate Ms. Feng's situation to this body.
Sherri Fenq, 5801 Myda Ave., Temple City, CA 91780 - Stated that she understands why this
project is being proposed, that The Gateway Project would increase sales tax revenue, and she is
in favor of community improvements, however, the approval of this project will be problematic for
her property.
Community Development Manager Lambert - Stated that Ms. Feng's garage is located off of Elm
Street and she would like to put a driveway off of Myda Avenue, however, the Municipal Code
prohibits her request because the driveway would not lead to a legal parking space. Stated that it
is his understanding that when Elm Street was vacated, that property reverted back to the owner of
what is now Mr. Wang's property.
City Attorney Vega — Stated that Ms. Feng's concerns regarding the driveway have been aired, that
this is not the appropriate time to address exhibits, and that she could speak to Staff regarding this
matter during regular business hours to see if there are avenues to apply for a permit. Stated that
she could also speak seek legal consultation. Stated that the City Council and the Planning
Commission could only act on items that are on the Agenda.
Commissioner Chen — Stated that he felt that the residents concern is germane to The Gateway
Project due to the potential traffic impact, and would like to review Ms. Feng's request at a
subsequent meeting. Stated that although Ms. Feng's request is not agendized, Staff will address
her concerns when she visits City Hall during regular business hours.
Mary Kokayko — Stated that six years ago, the developers tried to force Ms. Feng to sell her
property.
Jack Wong, 5826 Sultana Ave., Temple City, CA 91780 — Stated that he is in favor of The Gateway
Project, however, is concerned that his driveway will be blocked due to the trucks delivering near
his driveway and would like to know if the street will be widened.
Joe Lee, 9057 Hermosa Ave., Temple City, CA 91780 - Stated that large trucks will not be able to
enter Sultana Avenue, nor will they be able to turn because the street is too small.
Sharon Orpeza, 10065 Olive St., Temple City, CA 91780 — Stated that she is in favor of this
request. Stated that she would like to request that the developers attempt to attract a Texas
Roadhouse Restaurant. Stated that there are several of these restaurants in Northern California
and in other states but there are none in Southern California. Stated that the restaurant is popular,
they are reasonable priced, and the food is excellent.
Mary Kokayko - Stated that she is would like to see a themed commercial site, so that the City
would have an architectural style that is different from other cities. Stated that she is in favor of the
color scheme and finds the awnings attractive but is not in favor of the office space.
Director of Community Development Masura — Stated that he could address the truck access, dust,
and environmental concerns. Stated the conditions of approval indicate that the delivery trucks will
enter only on Sultana Avenue and will only exit on Elm Street. Stated that any development will
somewhat cause an increase of traffic, but should be minimized because there are three access
Planning Commission Minutes
Date of Hearing: February 22. 2011
points to The Gateway Project. Stated that the Rosemead Boulevard Safety Enhancement and
Beautification Project will also address issues regarding curb extension, lane widening, and
landscaping. Stated that lane restriping and curb extension on Rosemead Boulevard should calm
traffic, and would like to encourage the public to attend the meeting regarding the Rosemead
Boulevard Safety Enhancement and Beautification Project on March 24 as the concept design
and plans will be presented for the public to view.
Collette Morse, Vice President RBF Consulting, 1147 Alton Pkwy., Irvine, CA 92618 - Stated that
she oversaw the preparation of the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. Stated that as
Community Development Manager Lambert pointed out in the Subsequent Negative Declaration,
in section 5, the following are mitigation measures are listed: aesthetics, air quality, noise, geology,
and traffic. Stated that in respect to air quality, many things are dealt with during construction
period specifically dealing with diesel equipment, dust gas exhaust and painting materials must
comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District standards. Stated that the allowable
hours for construction are from 7 a.m. through 7p.m. Monday through Friday, on Saturdays from 8
a.m. to 6 p.m., and there is no allowable construction on Sundays or on holidays. Stated that the
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration demonstrates how the trucks would enter from Sultana
Avenue and turn into the loading site area.
Community Development Manager Lambert — Stated that the Subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration is available to the public to view.
Commissioner Horton — Stated that the conditions of approval prohibit a truck from turning the
wrong direction and would like to ensure that there will be an enforcement mechanism.
Community Development Manager Lambert — Stated that a delivery truck cannot turn left onto
Sultana Avenue, and the trucks will enter The Gateway Project from Sultana Avenue, they will be
traveling northbound turning left into the site.
Director of Community Development Masura — Stated that The Gateway Project includes a nine
foot wall with landscaping. Stated that he is not sure how the issues of the residents on Myda
Avenue were addressed when the previous development was proposed, however, in the case of
The Gateway Project aesthetics is a less significant project.
Community Development Manager Lambert — Stated that there were no conditions of approval
from 2006, addressing 5801 Myda Avenue. Stated that the residence itself is approximately ten
years old and most of the neighboring homes in the area are somewhat older. Stated that when
the residence at 5801 Myda Avenue was designed, the garage was built in its current location with
access from Elm Avenue. Stated that in 2006, entitlements for the development included a 50 foot
parking structure and a green screen to soften the northerly elevation whereas now the proposed
buildings are approximately 30 feet tall. Stated that in addition the mitigation measures have been
amended and there are three options to beautify the North elevation of building A by adding a
green screen, enhance the building as shown in the elevation, or a combination of both. Stated
that the applicant is required to have a landscaping plan as well, and one of the goals is to have
more street trees along Myda Avenue.
Collette Morse, Vice President RBF Consulting, 1147 Alton Pkwy., Irvine, CA 92618 - Stated that a
nine foot wall is proposed to block noise as opposed to the previously approved six foot high block
wall that was previously approved.
Commissioner Horton -- Stated that he is excited that The Gateway Project is moving forward, and
finds the design features pleasing. Stated that he studied the traffic analysis and would like to
discuss the appropriateness of installing a traffic signal at Rosemead Boulevard and Elm Street.
Planning Commission Minutes
Date of Hearing: February 22, 2011
Collette Morse, Vice President RBF Consulting, 1147 Alton Pkwy.. Irvine, CA 92618 Stated that
the primary focus was to review the way to see how The Gateway Project would be compared to
the previously approved project.
Paul Martin, RBF Consulting 1147 Alton Pkwy., Irvine, CA 92618 - Stated that he is the civil and
traffic engineer for The Gateway Project. Asked Commissioner Horton if he was concerned about
the restrictions on Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive.
Commissioner Horton — Stated that he would like to know if the concerns of the public were
addressed in advance through a scientific analysis looking at existing traffic with an eye toward
how the traffic would change if the project were approved and if it was warranted that a signalized
right hand turn lane was warranted.
Paul Martin, RBF Consulting 1147 Alton Pkwy., Irvine, CA 92618 — Stated that the traffic
memorandum compares the previously approved traffic analysis to the current traffic analysis.
Stated that this site plan generates less traffic, in fact significantly less traffic. Stated that he did not
look at Elm Street to see if a traffic signal was needed, however, he feels that a traffic signal is not
necessary on Elm Street because it was not previously needed. Stated that there are mitigation
measures on Rosemead Boulevard and Elm Street that will be carried forward, and there is a
median so that vehicles are not able to go back and forth. There are vehicles that exit on
Rosemead Boulevard that are required to turn right.
Commissioner Horton — Asked Community Development Manager Lambert if Traffic Engineer
Lang found that a traffic signal would not be necessary.
Community Development Manager Lambert — Stated that as Mr. Martin stated the memorandum
indicates that the proposal in front of the Planning Commission is now smaller than it was in 2009.
Stated that the existing mitigation measures still apply because The Gateway Project is smaller in
size and are still valid. Stated that some mitigation measure have been amended.
Commissioner Horton — Asked Mr. Poyourow on Page 29 of the greenhouse gas emissions
analysis that he saw a couple of land measures that show a 30% reduction of VMT in regards to
MUZ development references. Stated to get mixed use veracity he would like to alert Mr.
Poyourow that there are Foothill Transit bus lines that exist that may or may not collaborate with
this project that could potentially reduce traffic. Stated that likewise he would like to see reference
regarding bikes concurrent with the Citywide Master Bicycle Plan.
Howard Poyourow, 1772 Palisades Dr., Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 - Stated that he has
embraced this opportunity to coordinate with the efforts of the City regarding the Rosemead
Boulevard Safety Enhancement and Beautification Project. Stated that the landscape architect
for The Gateway Project has also been hired to design landscape for the Rosemead Boulevard
Safety Enhancement and Beautification Project. Stated that the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan is
terrific and would like to join forces with the Rosemead Boulevard Safety Enhancement and
Beautification Project. Stated that his heart goes out to the people that have experienced traffic
issues, certainly to the extent that he could help to have the ability to control traffic along
Rosemead Boulevard, but would like to point out that traffic control is in part the responsibility of the
City and in part responsibility of the community. Stated that the City hears the concerns that are
expressed by the public, and Director of Community Development Masura stated that those
concerns are being addressed by the Rosemead Boulevard Safety Enhancement and
Beautification Project.
Planning Commission Minutes
Date of Hearing: February 22, 2011
Commissioner Horton — Stated that all of the comments that he has raised reflects the
consideration of the work that was described, and realized that there are a lot of stakeholders who
have put in a lot of input regarding this project, however, would like to speak to those that trigger
warrant special consideration. Stated that there could be pedestrian design consideration for
neighboring residents as the City Council looks at this not just in terms of Rosemead Boulevard but
a walkable area along Las Tunas Drive.
Howard Poyourow, 1772 Palisades Dr., Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 - Stated that this is a project
that seeks to be a gateway to the City that encourages walkabilty as opposed to strictly a
commercial development.
Commissioner Horton — Asked Director of Community Development Masura if pedestrian portals
would be appropriate for this project.
Director of Community Development Masura -- Stated that he understands that there would not be
a pedestrian portal on Myda Avenue, in respect that heard residents would rather not have their
neighborhood easily accessed. Stated that the Rosemead Boulevard Safety Enhancement and
Beautification Project is proposing bicycle lanes and the bus stops will be redesigned with bus
shelters. Stated that this project will include ample pedestrian access.
Armando Aguirre, Colliers International, 865 Figueroa St. #3500, Los Angeles CA 90017 — Stated
that he would like to bring up a different point for public consideration. Stated that to address the
concerns of the residents of Myda Avenue, the loading docks are not right off of Myda Avenue, the
trucks will have certain hours of operation for loading such as non peak hours, and that the design
of the project requires the trucks to enter and exit a certain way. Stated that pedestrian portals
could be restricted to the immediate neighboring community which could be secured with a locked
gate. Stated that The Gateway Project and the opportunity this development will bring to the
community far outweighs the negative impacts. Stated that this developer is attempting to invest in
the neighborhood and build it in a way that is resident friendly, and act as a stepping stone to tie
the four corners of Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive together. Stated that The Gateway
Project will have walkways, could potentially bring approximately 200 jobs to this community, and
could generate a significant tax base to build upon that could be used toward another anchor
project. Stated that it is important to improve Temple City's thoroughfares and key locations, as
this is a landmark center and gateway point for the City. Stated that The Gateway Project is a
community effort, and the City should consider what is acceptable for their residents. Stated that
he has seen other cities start a police force that a sign indicating what speed vehicles are traveling,
and have the Police Department enforce the area to ensure safe driving. Stated that widening the
lanes on Rosemead Boulevard could help mitigate potential traffic problems.
Jerry Jambazian, 9136 Las Tunas Dr., Temple City, CA 91780 - Stated that he is in favor of this
project. Asked Mr. Aguirre if banquet space will be available at the restaurants and what type of
restaurant typically occupies 4,500 -- 6,500 square feet.
Armando Aguirre, Colliers international, 865 Figueroa St. #3500, Los Angeles CA 90017 — Stated
that restaurants such as Olive Garden and Red Lobster typically occupy a 4,500 — 6,500 square
foot building. Stated that they should be large enough have a party or banquet area. Stated that a
national restaurant chain is preferable and that he is open to offers.
Jerry Jambazian, 9136 Las Tunas Dr., Temple City, CA 91780 - Stated that he has heard that a
Best Buy may occupy the main retail anchor space. Stated that he would like to know what streets
the large trucks would take if they were in route towards the 210 or the 10 freeway. Stated that is
particularly concerned about trucks travelling down Longden Avenue as there is a school on that
street.
Planning Commission Minutes
Date of Hearing. February 22. 2011
Chairman O'Leary — Stated that there are weight limitations that prohibit large trucks to travel on
certain streets.
Director of Community Development Masura — Stated that he does not believe that Longden
Avenue is designated as a truck route.
Jerry Jambazian, 9136 Las Tunas Dr., Temple City, CA 91780 — Stated that he believes that large
trucks are allowed to travel along Duarte Road. Asked Director of Community Development
Masura if two easterly left hand turn lanes will be retained turning from Rosemead Boulevard to las
Tunas Drive.
Director of Community Development Masura -- Stated that it would have to be determined to see if
there would be a change and that the trucks would have to properly turn at the intersection.
Armando Aguirre, Colliers International, 865 Figueroa St. #3500, Los Angeles CA 90017 — Stated
that he is talking to Best Buy, as well as another appliance store. Stated that a retail store or a
grocery store could occupy the 35,000 square foot anchor space. Stated that Trader Joes, Smart
and Final, and Henry's are supermarkets that are being pursued.
Chairman O'Leary — Asked if anyone else from the public would like to speak in favor or against
the proposed request. No one came forth at this time.
Commissioner Horton - Made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner
Chen and unanimously carried.
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that this project has been ongoing since 2006 and feels
that this is a high -quality project. Stated that the biggest objection from the public was
the previous mixed use aspect of the proposal, however, without the mixed -use zoning
residents should have an easier time accepting this project. Stated that he is in favor of
recommending this project to the City Council.
Commissioner Chen - Stated that fellow Commissioner Seibert's comments were well
said. Stated that he would like to commend everyone involved on a job well done and
could make the findings to vote in favor of this proposal.
Vice -Chairman Valenzuela — Stated that to be perfectly honest he could make the
findings to recommend approval of this request to the City Council, however, due to the
history of the project he is torn regarding his vote to approve this project. Stated that he
decided to consult the Planning Commissioner Protocols, specifically Appendix B, on
how to make an ethical decision and one of the key points is will this decision act to lead
the City Official to act as the sort of person they want to be and cannot see himself
voting to approve a project that was linked to the history of the previous proposal.
Commissioner Horton -- Stated that after reviewing the Subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration and reviewing the appendices and the testimony from Staff, he could make
the findings to recommend approval of this project to the City Council.
Chairman O'Leary — Stated that he also could make the findings to recommend
approval of this project to the City Council.
Planning Commission Minutes
Date of Hearing: February 22, 2011
Community Development Manager Lambert — Stated that he would like to strike the
word residential on condition 45 on page 8 out of 10 on the Resolution.
Commissioner Seibert — Stated that he would like to respond to Ms. Kokayko's inquiry regarding
the proposed office use at The Gateway Project. Stated that the office use will help enhance the
use of The Gateway Project because employees will buy lunch and shop onsite during their
breaks.
Commissioner Seibert - Made a motion to adopt the Resolution, recommending that the City
Council adopt a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve Zone Change 09-1741
and Conditional Use Permit 11-1778 seconded by Commissioner Chen and carried by the
following Roll Call Vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Commissioner Chen Aye
Commissioner Horton Aye
Commissioner Seibert Aye
Vice -Chairman Valenzuela Nay
Chairman O'Leary Aye
TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING APPLICATION
Conditional Use Permit
Zone Variance
Minor Zone Modification
General Plan Amendment
Zone Change
Property Owner.
Address:
TCD ENTERPRISES, LLC
1
V -i I
`2G �7
Modification of Conditional Use Permit
Tentative Parcel Map (4 or less units)
Tentative Tract Map (5 or more units)
Other:
Applicant: Howard Poyourow, Project Managcr
Address:
1772 Palisades Dr. Pacific•. Pa
Address/Location of Project: 9�
Description of permit requested:
(Attached additional sheets it necessary)
Phone 626-905-9142
11
n
Phone310.46 9779
Commemial Approximately 115,009sf of Retail, Office,
attacnmen
Reason given to support your request. (Please see attachment)
(Attached additional sheets if necessary)
Notes: 1. All applications require site plan, floor plan(s), and elevations to be submitted, unless otherwise
specified by staff.
2. Additional processing documents may or may not be required to be submitted with this
application (e.g. environmental evaluation), schedule of classes. hours of operation (days & times),
schedule of facilities events.
3. A grant deed, showing the legal description, is required for all applications.
4. If applicant does not own the property that is the subject of this application, owner must
also sign application.
5. Applicant declares that this is an application for development approval.
6. Applications are not deemed complete until ALL REQUIRED MATERIALS are submitted.
Date:
Date:
3 00
Signature
Signature
Applicant
EV1SE
:tali -``ICY]
FA.,. -8 a5 .
Q
Ortj .91c.
IY +l ‘ k a
4*: ors . L
TEMPLE CITY FILE NO, CtiP 11- /77
PLANNING APPLICATION
Conditional Use Permit
Zone Variance
Minor Zone Modification
General Plan Amendment
Zone Change
n
(Assigned by City)
Modification of Conditional Use Permit
Tentative Parcel Map (4 or less units)
Tentative Tract Map (5 or more units)
Other:
Property Owner. 7a Evrgopki52,Ivc. Phone ‘24_ 965-- D412_.
Address: 1 rt5-£.S1 TAOS' l •) 41trac SAN c4& L] A_%r774
Applicant: ti! •1.1fs).0a,' cR< T'G ICGT_A Phone ,4014-7 7_ 't.;7..2
Address: L772 P4t 15h'JDf S 2 i Plr /t" 2=2, _
Address/Location of Project: ,'/%'�:. ! .1 . I Cfr ) r Iivy (i ?f Zsy,-..
r ?1i7/"r, , 737b IC• ,„...f..., /'
Description of permit requested: L L..h L) 4-T rt t .r /1, L FFL C T L ' AtT
(Attached additional sheets if necessary)
CP-Lair .14-C
Reason given to support your request 1 3E s. . ? 7-7-4K-44+40 di D
(Attached additional sheets if necessary)
Notes: 1. All applications require site plan, floor plan(s), and elevations to be submitted, unless otherwise
specified by staff.
2. Additional processing documents may or may not be required to be submitted with this
application (e.g. environmental evaluation), schedule of classes, hours of operation (days & times),
schedule of facilities events.
3. A grant deed, showing the legal description, is required for all applications.
4. If applicant does not own the property that is the subject of this application, owner must
also sign application.
5. Applicant declares that this is an application for development approval.
6. Applications are not deemed complete until ALL REQUIRED MATERIALS are submitted.
Date: f � J /7 (l Signature �if"'4 �'` 1/ •�` t.
� /' ! � 9 _ --�
/ Property OW6er
Date: ///4//2-101
(For Office Use Only)
Date Filed
/
Signature
Applicant
Recd By Fee Pd lort Receipt No. /0157
TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING APPLICATION - ZONE CHANGE
TCD Enterprises, LLC.
Temple City Piazza Mixed Use Project
Reason given to support your request:
TCD Enterprises, LLC achieved all entitlements for a mixed use project with residential at the project
site in Temple City in mid 2007, and began the Plan Check process late the same year.
In late 2007 and into 2008, major contractions took place in the housing markets and credit industries
around the world. As 2008 advanced, development and construction came to a virtual halt everywhere.
Projects were abandoned or cancelled from L.A. to London to Dubai, and all points in between.
Bankruptcies and foreclosures increased to multi -decade highs. A world-wide economic crisis erupted.
In an effort to continue with the Temple City Piazza project, the TCD team met with City Staff and the
City Council on a number of occasions between October and December of 2008.
We suggested that since we were in the midst of the most severe housing crash and world-wide
economic recession since the 1930's, it was essential to consider eliminating the residential component
from the Piazza mixed use project. By so doing, the project might continue and succeed as a
commercial mixed use project without residential.
The Council responded favorably, and requested that TCD bring the modifications to the Planning
Commission for review. Based on the City Council's directive issued at the meeting of December 2,
2008, City Staff followed with letters to TCD staff on 12/18/08, 1/20/09, and 2/10/09 detailing all
elements to be included in the new CUP Planning Application. Detailed communications continued as
the architectural, engineering and environmental work needed to complete the Planning Application
submittal proceeded.
Temple City specifically requested that TCD Enterprises, LLC submit the following:
1. A complete Planning Application for a new Conditional Use Permit for the Temple City Piazza
project as changed from a mixed use project with residential to a mixed use project without
residential.
2. A Master Environmental Application form.
3. A new environmental assessment.
4. A request for an amendment to the existing Development Agreement to extend the 8/23/09
completion deadline contained in Temple City Ordinance 06-905 and its related Development
Agreement 05-1.
The above items were submitted on 4/30/09. On 5/28/09, the City responded that '1...Staff has
determined that a Conditional Use Permit is not the appropriate application for this type of proposal. Given the
approved zoning and Development Agreement which govern development on the project site, the scope of your
revised proposal will require rezoning the site and will require an amendment to Development Agreement0 5-1,
pursuant to section 14 of said Development Agreement."
In addition, the City requested on 5/28/09 that the following items be submitted to complete the "...initial
environmental evaluation:
1. A revised traffic study and parking impact analysis.
2. A shade and shadow study as well as a study regarding aesthetic impacts.
3 A greenhouse gas impact study, as this was not done as part of the original "Piazza"
environmental analysis."
The shade and shadow study and aesthetic study were submitted on 6/23/09 under separate cover.
And the revised traffic study and parking impact analysis, and green house gas study will follow shortly.
The request for an amendment to the Development Agreement 05-1, pursuant to section 14 of said
Development Agreement is below:
Request for an amendment to the existing Development Agreement to extend the 8/23/09
completion deadline contained in Temple City Ordinance 06-905 and its related Development
Agreement 05-1
These are extraordinary times, calling for extraordinary cooperation between the public and private
sectors The historians can afford to look backward at a later date. But if we wish to effect measures to
transform the present, we must look forward and find practical ways to build a viable future. We offer
the amendment request below as one such measure, looking forward, based on verifiable industry
standards, and offered in the spirit of constructive growth.
In order to achieve a project which can truly serve as the "Western Gateway" to Temple City, we
request that the project deadline be extended for 3 years to 8/23/12. Furthermore, we request that the
following time table be accepted as the Projected Schedule for the Project. All dates are estimations,
and, though based on experiential research and industry standards, must be understood to be
preceded by the qualifying phrase "on or about":
Planning Commission approval — 9/ 19/09
Design Review Commission Approval (if required) - 10/ 1/ 09
City Council approval -10/ 06/ 09
Coordinated Arch & Engr Construction Document preparation - 10/ 12/ 09 thru 3 / 12/ 10
Plan Check Submittal & Approval - 3/ 15/ 10 thru 7/ 15/ 10
Construction Permits Issued - 7/ 19/ 10
Construction - 8/ 1/ 10 thru 2/ 1/ 12 (fast track) or 8/ 1/ 12 (standard track)
Certificate of Occupancy - 8/ 1/ 12
Tenant Build Out — included in standard track timeline above
Project Description:
"Temple City Piazza is a mixed use project, without residential, of approximately 145,000 square feet, located at the north-
east corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive. This "Western Gateway" to Temple City is a grouping of buildings
with a collection of retail, office, restaurant and banquet facilities in a festive Venetian architectural vernacular,"
'"the design and organization of the ltalianate project is both dynamic and straightforward, Marked by two Campanile
towers at pedestrian entrances, the series of buildings is designed at varying heights to create a cohesive design aesthetic
while conveying a "village effect" to the project. Anchored by a central parking structure, the first and second floors of retail,
restaurant, and offices are easily accessible from the structure, yet activate the street scene and sidewalks with storefronts
that graciously lead to a central piazza. This piazza is marked by lush landscaping, water features, dynamic lighting and a
festival environment of small merchant 'desks, dining, and performance spaces. Elevators, escalators, and grand curving
staircases connect the second level retail, offices, and restaurants to the piazza while creating covered arcades for shade. As
a further note, a landscape buffer has been created between the project and the adjacent property residences to the North,"
"The street level is completed with a McDonald's restaurant, induding a drive-thru to ensure patronage and activity. With
bridges to all levels from the multi -level parking garage, the third floor is designed for banquet halls, meeting rooms, and
catering facilities to ensure the project's vitality to the needs of the community for all manner of cultural uses for the neigh-
borhood."
Proposed "Retail Only" Scheme Summary
Bldg No.
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Total Per BLDG
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross Net
BLDG 6
22,093
16,443
21,857
18,149
0
0
0
0
43,950
34,592
BLDG 5
11,850
11.357
11,850
11,625
0
0
0
0
23,700
22,982
BLDG 4
8,136
7,656
8,136
7,939
3,435
3,224
0
0
19,707
18,819
BLDG 36
3,645
2.507
3,645
2,507
0
0
0
0
7,290
5,014
BLDG 3A
5,888
5,380
5,888
5,600
0
0
0
0
11,776
10,980
BLDG 3AB
0
0
0
0
8,078
7.601
0
0
8,078
7,601
BLDG 2
9,611
8,581
12,300
10,450
9,175
8,781
0
0
31,086
27,812
TOTAL
61,223
51,924
63,676
56,270
20,688
19,606
0
0
145.587
127,800
Commercial
Parking Required
• Retail
• Anchor
27,800
111
• Specialty
40,438
162
• Food Court
8,700
35
• Net Retail
76,936
308 Spaces
• Net Dine In Restaurants
27,000
108 Spaces
• Nat Food w/ Drive thru
4,124
16 Spaces
• Net Banquet
8,781
35 Spaces
• Net Office
10,957
33 Spaces
TOTAL LEASABLE
127,800
500
TOTAL GROSS
145,587
Parking Garage
~ Garage Level
Spaces
Gross SF
Basement 2
60
23,986
Basement 1
78
30,823
Ground
75
30,608
2nd
80
30,608
3rd
85
30,608
4th
85
30,609
5th
85
30,608
6th
72
27,164
Parking Garage Total Gross SF
235,0I1
Total Parking Spaces
620
Total Packing Required
500
Zoning Info Summary
SF
ACRE
5F/ACRE
Xoftot
FAR Ratio
Lot Size
156,925
3.60
Building Footprint
91,831
2.11
Open Space
65,091
_ 1.49
41.48%
Landscaping fW/amrsona4.i+•al
21,958
0.50
13.99%
Lot Coverage
58,52%
Density avow sl +•d.eJ
_
105,648.23
Oens►ty t' 'ward
40,412.74
F.A.R. (pow/4Ndus,4)
2.43
F.A.R. fmo•e•a•1
0.93
TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING APPLICATION
TCD Enterprises, LLC.
Temple City Piazza Mixed Use Project
Reason given to support your request:
TCD Enterprises, LLC achieved all entitlements for a mixed use project with residential at the project
site in Temple City in mid 2007, and began the Plan Check process late the same year.
In late 2007 and into 2008, a "sea -change" took place in the housing markets and credit industries
around the world. As 2008 advanced, development and construction came to a virtual halt everywhere.
Projects were abandoned or cancelled from L.A. to London to Dubai, and all points in between.
Bankruptcies and foreclosures increased to multi -decade highs. A world-wide economic crisis erupted.
In an effort to continue with the Temple City Piazza project, the TCD team met with City Staff and the
City Council on a number of occasions between October and December of 2008.
We suggested that since we were in the midst of the most severe housing crash and world-wide
economic crisis since the 1930's, it was essential to consider eliminating the residential component
from the Piazza mixed use project. By so doing, the project might continue and succeed as a
commercial mixed use project without residential.
The Council responded favorably, and requested that TCD bring the modifications to the Planning
Commission for review. Based on the City Council's directive issued at the meeting of December 2,
2008, City Staff followed with letters to TCD staff on 12/18/08, 1/20/09, and 2/10/09 detailing all
elements to be included in the new CUP Planning Application. Detailed communications continued as
the architectural, engineering and environmental work needed to complete the Planning Application
submittal proceeded.
Temple City has specifically requested that TCD Enterprises, LLC submit the following:
1. A complete Planning Application for a new Conditional Use Permit for the Temple City Piazza
project as changed from a mixed use project with residential to a mixed use project without
residential.
2. A Master Environmental Application form.
3. A new environmental assessment.
4. A request for an amendment to the existing Development Agreement to extend the 8/23/09
completion deadline contained in Temple City Ordinance 06-905 and its related Development
Agreement 05-1.
Items 1 — 3 above are to be found in the accompanying submittal documents.
Item 4.follows:
Request for an amendment to the existing Development Agreement to extend the 8123109
completion deadline contained in Temple City Ordinance 06-905 and its related Development
Agreement 05-1
Obviously, these are extraordinary times, calling for extraordinary cooperation between the public and
private sectors if we are to emerge from the deep recession in which we are all immersed. The
historians can afford to look backward at a later date. But if we wish to effect measures to transform
the present, we must look forward and find practical ways to build a viable future. We offer the
amendment request below as one such measure, looking forward, based on verifiable industry
standards, and offered in the spirit of constructive growth.
In order to achieve a project which can truly serve as the "Western Gateway" to Temple City, we
request that the project deadline be extended for 3 years to 8/23/12. Furthermore, we request that the
following time table be accepted as the Projected Schedule for the Project. All dates are estimations,
and, though based on experiential research and industry standards, must be understood to be
preceded by the qualifying phrase "on or about":
Planning Commission approval -- 7/ 19/09
Design Review Commission Approval (if required) - 8/ 1/09
City Council approval - 8/ 11/09
Coordinated Arch & Engr Construction Document preparation - 8/ 12/ 09 thru 21111 10
Plan Check Submittal & Approval - 2/ 15/ 10 thru 7/ 15/10
Construction Permits Issued - 7/ 15/ 10
Construction - 8/ 1/ 10 thru 2/ 1/ 12 (fast track) or 8/1/ 12 (standard track)
Certificate of Occupancy - 8/ 1/12
Tenant Build Out -- included in standard track timeline above
Dale Filed:
4-7-5Q/0q
General Information
City of Temple City
Environmental Information Form
(To Be Completed By Applicant)
Received By:
1. Developer (property owner) information:
Name:
Address:
City, State:
Phone Number:
2. Project Information:
Address:
City, State:
Assessor's Parcel
Number (APN or AIN): 53814R -49N
TCD Enl 7'ER rsEs LLC
100.5 E,LAs-Ervis R.)
Stu (AMi E L! CA. 111 7 74
,62 - 905 9/qi i_.
.rimes CITY fzZA
9021 Lis Tuwv4S Dizi✓E.
�m'P1 C fry, CA. 9/774
3. Contact Person:
Name:
Address:
City, State:
Phone Number:
To
1772 PA L.l s/wF
TAr.1F« TALiSADES1 (A ' 7�
316 -4P -o771
4. Application Number (Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Zone Variance (ZV), General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, Residential Plan Development (RPD), etc.):
CLIP
5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this
project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:
N
0uii 5 J
CITY CPU/qui_
Page 1 of 5
6. Existing zoning district: MIXED r
7. Proposed use of site (project for which this form is being filed): L11IXED USEj lU1TNDLJ"1•
kESID.w L4L
Project Description
8. Lot Size:
9. Square footage:
/O JcRi=S
/5_ J 9z
10. Number of floors of construction: ,L~VE S OF i71=MILE FF/rF.JFS -At iENT
LEVELS or MAKING �2SVTEARA E4AI
11. Amount of off-street parking provided: 42.9 SPRcES
12. Attach plans: SE[- !Q7hAGticj FLAW S
13. Proposed scheduling:(1rwMa; 77,M/ f/26/ — AVZOIZ
14. Associated project: N/
15. Anticipated incremental development: N/A
16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents,
and type of household size expected: N�R
Unit #
Size in square feet Range of prices
Type of household size
If more units, please attach additional paper work
17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regional oriented, square
footage of sales area, and loading facilities•
�LEASs SEE /1'7TAGHMONT�
Unit #
Size in square feet
Type of store
Loading facilities
more units, please attach additional paper work
Page 2 of 5
18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift and loading facilities: h/jR
Unit #
Type of business
Number of employees
Loading facilities
more units, please attach additional paper work
19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy,
loading facilities and community benefits to be derived from the project. NA.
Major function
Number of
employees
Estimated
occupancy
Loading
facilities
Community
benefits
more units, please attach additional paper work
20. If the project involves a zone variance, conditional use permit or rezoning application, state this
and indicate clearly why the application is required
Application
Why is it required
e. UP
Mt'
E HE- riltil &Fi r
siAi l RQi(_r CEERt"E SEE
krrg-en/
(T )
more units, please attach additional paper work
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes
(attach additional sheets as necessary).
21. Change in existing features of any bays, tideland, beaches, lakes or hills, or
substantial alternation or ground contours
22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public
lands or roads
23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity
26. Change in oceans, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or
alteration of existing drainage patterns.
•
Yes No
❑
111
E ❑
❑ N
❑ x❑
Page3 of5
Yes No
27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity
28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more.
29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flammables or explosives.
30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.).
31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas,
etc.).
32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
Discussions for 21-32, attach additional sheets as necessary:
ILeASC -6
FR OUR LACER !1?IXE2 Uig /I/iv/ Rrj AL "/ / zin
!,o7iiivel 4 4r 71/6 ,,41+16 S/77E 'A/ ` 53.)7 -d/3 -Q3!)
AR) FLT .SSE /MI/0 lkrra Pxaen iirme,oig, %TEL
RiEciora ,4r�rr e TALE GJ7y ? MLz 4T 1 ��,v.�s 7..✓ L -
Environmental Setting
33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil
stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing
structures 011 the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Photographs
or digital photographs on a CD or DVD will be accepted.
n -E cee I gt$&VL '7a /I/64-7 .l�, 77O/ , fS Aaeva ,
,9Li o NEAT -44,77-40e: am( fw2e2 LOFF, , 9$ ✓C_
Page 4 of 5
34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any
cultural historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residentx4 commercial etc.),
intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of
development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity.
Photographs or digital photographs on a CD or DVD will be accepted.
P/.0/sY SEE *7 N€6 4 4Mr4V k 1e if2OVE
7Lb , ?0,'US 4 /1jL/S/6- L ELS. 6.45) C /c4r, w L Tix.L
*SS) ?c. S'& q-77; ei L ' Rif5
Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements,
and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date:
Signature:
Print name:
For:
1411.441;D 73/o4/ Re
�irr�L (/r r-z74-
TC7 E;vTC, S S, L. LC
Page 5 of 5
Project Description:
"Temple City Piazza is a mixed use project, without residential, of approximately 145,000 square feet, located at the north-
east tourer of Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive. This "Western Gateway" to Temple City is a grouping of buildings
with a collection of retail, office, restaurant and banquet facilities in a festive Venetian architectural vernacular,"
"The design and organization of the ltalianate project is both dynamic and straightforward. Marked by two Campanile
towers at pedestrian entrances, the series of buildings is designed at varying heights to create a cohesive design aesthetic
while conveying a'village effect" to the project. Anchored by a central parking structure, the first and second floors of retail,
restaurant, and offices are easily accessible from the structure, yet activate the street scene and sidewalks with storefronts
that graciously lead to a central piazza. This piazza is marked by lush landscaping, water features, dynamic lighting and a
festival environment of small merchant kiosks, dining, and performance spaces. Elevators, escalators, and grand curving
staircases connect the second level retail, offices, and restaurants to the piazza while creating covered arcades for shade. As
a further note, a landscape buffer has been created between the project and the adjacent property residences to the North,"
"The street level is completed with a McDonald's restaurant, including a drive-thru to ensure patronage and activity. With
bridges to all levels from the multi -level parking garage, the third floor is designed for banquet halls, meeting rooms, and
catering facilities to ensure the project's vitality to the needs of the community for all manner of cultural uses for the neigh-
borhood."
Proposed "Retail Only" Scheme Summary
Bldg No.
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level A
Total Per BLDG
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross Net
BLDG 6
22,093
16,443
21,857
18,149
0
0
0
0
43,950
34,592
BLDG 5
11,850
11.357
11,850
11,625
0
0
0
0
23,700
22,982
BLDG 4
8,136
7,656
8,136
7,939
3,435
3,224
0
0
19,707
18,819
BLDG 38
3,645
2.507
3,645
2,507
0
0
0
0
7,290
5,014
BLDG 3A
5,888
5,380
5,888
5,600
0
0
0
0
11,776
10,980
BLDG 3AB
0
0
0
0
8,078
7,601
0
0
8,078
7,601
BLDG 2
9,611
8,581
12,300
10,450
9,175
6,781
0
0
31,086
27,812
TOTAL
61.223
51,924
63,676
56,270
20,688
19.606
0
0
145,587
127,800
commercial
Parking Required
• Retail
• Anchor
27,800
I21
• Specialty
40,438
162
• Food Court
8,700
35
• Net Retell
76,938
308 Spaces
• Net Dine In Restaurants
27,000
108 Spaces
• Net Food w/ Drive•thru
4,124
16 spaces
• Net Banquet
8,781
35 Spaces
• Net Office
10,957
33 Spaces
TOTAL LEASABLE
127,800
500
'TOTAL GROSS
145,587
Parking Garage
Garage Leuei
Spaces
Gross SF
Basement 2
60
23,986
Basement 1
78
30,821
Ground
75
30,608
2nd
80
30,608
3rd
85
30,608
4th
85
30,608
5th
85
30,608
6th
72
27.164
Parking Garage Total Gross SF
235,011
Total Parking Spaces
620
Total Parking Required
500
Zoning Info Summary
SF
ACRE
SF/ACRE
9i of Lot
FAR Ratio
Lot Sire
156,925
3.60
Bonding Footprint
91,831
2.11
Open Spore
65,094
1.49
41.48%
Landscaping iv, sines Immix w w
21,958
0.50
13.99%
Lot Coverage
58.52%
Dens►tyy I&+r r+•frzsr* j
105,648.23
Density sr. rwesel
40,412.74
F.A.R. ir•rwedferr•e••0
2.43
F.A.R. leo rrMy
_
0.93
TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING APPLICATION
TCD Enterprises, LLC,
Temple City Piazza Mixed Use Project
Reason given to support your request:
TCD Enterprises, LLC achieved all entitlements for a mixed use project with residential at the project
site in Temple City in mid 2007, and began the Plan Check process late the same year.
In late 2007 and into 2008, a "sea -change" took place in the housing markets and credit industries
around the world. As 2008 advanced, development and construction came to a virtual halt everywhere.
Projects were abandoned or cancelled from L.A. to London to Dubai, and all points in between.
Bankruptcies and foreclosures increased to multi -decade highs. A world-wide economic crisis erupted.
In an effort to continue with the Temple City Piazza project, the TCD team met with City Staff and the
City Council on a number of occasions between October and December of 2008.
We suggested that since we were in the midst of the most severe housing crash and world-wide
economic crisis since the 1930's, it was essential to consider eliminating the residential component
from the Piazza mixed use project. By so doing, the project might continue and succeed as a
commercial mixed use project without residential.
The Council responded favorably, and requested that TCD bring the modifications to the Planning
Commission for review. Based on the City Council's directive issued at the meeting of December 2,
2008, City Staff followed with letters to TCD staff on 12/18/08, 1/20/09, and 2110109 detailing all
elements to be included in the new CUP Planning Application. Detailed communications continued as
the architectural, engineering and environmental work needed to complete the Planning Application
submittal proceeded.
Temple City has specifically requested that TCD Enterprises, LLC submit the following:
1. A complete Planning Application for a new Conditional Use Permit for the Temple City Piazza
project as changed from a mixed use project with residential to a mixed use project without
residential.
2. A Master Environmental Application form.
3. A new environmental assessment.
4. A request for an amendment to the existing Development Agreement to extend the 8/23/09
completion deadline contained in Temple City Ordinance 06-905 and its related Development
Agreement 05-1_
Items 1 — 3 above are to be found in the accompanying submittal documents.
Item 4.follows:
Request for an amendment to the existing Development Agreement to extend the 8123/09
completion deadline contained in Temple City Ordinance 06-905 and its related Development
Agreement 05-1
Obviously, these are extraordinary times, calling for extraordinary cooperation between the public and
private sectors if we are to emerge from the deep recession in which we are all immersed. The
historians can afford to look backward at a later date. But if we wish to effect measures to transform
the present, we must look forward and find practical ways to build a viable future. We offer the
amendment request below as one such measure, looking forward, based on verifiable industry
standards, and offered in the spirit of constructive growth.
In order to achieve a project which can truly serve as the "Western Gateway" to Temple City, we
request that the project deadline be extended for 3 years to 8/23/12. Furthermore, we request that the
following time table be accepted as the Projected Schedule for the Project. All dates are estimations,
and, though based on experiential research and industry standards, must be understood to be
preceded by the qualifying phrase "on or about":
Planning Commission approval — 7/19/09
Design Review Commission Approval (if required) - 8/ 1/09
City Council approval - 8/11/09
Coordinated Arch & Engr Construction Document preparation - 8/ 12/09 thru 2 / 11/ 10
Plan Check Submittal & Approval - 2/ 15/ 10 thru 7/ 15/ 10
Construction Permits Issued - 7/ 15/ 10
Construction - 8/ 1/10 thru 2/ 1/ 12 (fast track) or 8/ 1112 (standard track)
Certificate of Occupancy - 8/ 1/ 12
Tenant Build Out — included in standard track timeline above
April 24, 2009
Mr. Randy Wang
TCD Enterprises LLC
1005 E. Las Tunas Drive #505
San Gabriel, CA 91776
Subject: Environmental Recommendations for Temple City Piazza Project at Las
Tunas Drive & Rosemead Boulevard in Temple City
Dear Mr. Wang:
In 2006, the Temple City Piazza project received approval from the City of Temple City for a
mixed use project, which included residential and retail uses. The Mitigated Negative
Declaration adopted for the project analyzed a maximum site development of 58 condominium
units and approximately 127,800 square feet of retail and restaurant uses. The project also
entailed removing the existing on -site retail and theater uses.
Subsequent to the 2006 project approvals, the project applicant, PRSI Enterprise, has revised
the site plan and will be submitting a revised site plan and development application to the City.
As part of that submittal package, RBF Consulting (RBF) has reviewed the revised site plan and
the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and will offer some thoughts for the City of Temple
City to consider with respect to the CEQA document to accompany the revised site.
Revised Site Plan
The project as currently revised would occupy essentially the same footprint as approved in
2006, but is no longer a mixed use project. No residential units are proposed. The project
would be entirely commercial uses, and a total of 145,587 gross square feet are proposed. The
existing on -site retail and theater uses would be removed, as originally proposed. The revised
site plan proposes 108,062 net square of retail; 10,957 net square feet of office; and 8,781 net
square feet of banquet uses for a total leasable space of 127,800 square feet. The project
includes an eight -level parking garage that would occupy 235,011 square feet and 620 spaces;
500 spaces are required. The Floor Area Ratio is 0.93 without the parking garage and 2.43 if
the parking garage square footage is included.
CEQA Review and Options
RBF has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the City in 2006 and the
revised site plan. As noted above, the building footprint is essentially as approved in 2006 and
the overall square footage proposed is comparable. However, the mix of uses has changed.
The adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration provided analysis for all 17 topical areas identified
in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, and Included mitigation measures for five topical areas:
aesthetics (1), air quality (4), geology (1), noise (8), and traffic (4).
PLANNING DESIGN ; , CONSTRUCTION
14725 Alton Parhvray, Irvine, CA 92616-2027 • P.O. Box 57057, Irvine, CA 92619-7057 ■ 949.472.3505 • FAX 949.472.9373
0ffrees located throughout California, Arizona & Nevada • www.RBF.corn
Mr. Randy Wang
April 24, 2009
Page 2
Confirm Validity of 2006 MND Conclusions
From a CEQA perspective, it will be necessary to confirm that the environmental analysis and
18 mitigation measures adopted in 2006 are still valid and applicable to the revised project.
Update Technical Studies
We do believe that the traffic analysis should be updated to reflect the proposed commercial
uses. This work effort should be completed first, as this will provide information and guidance
about the need to update other technical studies, such as air quality or noise, as well as the type
of CEQA document needed for the revised project.
CEQA Options for Revised Project
There are several CEQA options for the revised project:
• Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration,
• New Mitigated Negative Declaration, or
• Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration.
At this point in time, RBF believes it will be possible to prepare an Addendum to the 2006
adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. It is envisioned that the Addendum will describe the
revised project, describe the conclusions and mitigation in the adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and describe the impacts of the revised project and how they compare to those
previously analyzed. The analysis will also note which mitigation measures are applicable to
the revised project. The Addendum will provide a comparison of the 17 CEQA topical areas.
RBF anticipates a discussion with City Staff following the revised project application submittal,
where RBF, City Staff, and the project applicant would refine the CEQA work program. This
would include a discussion of which technical studies need to revised, and the CEQA document
and process for anticipated for the revised project.
RBF is available to answer any questions you or the City of Temple City may have regarding
our initial CEQA recommendations. 1 can be reached at 949.855.3653 or cmorseCaarbf.com.
Sincerely,
eatettt be Alta.,
Collette L. Morse, AICP
Vice President
Planning/Environmental Services
Jt
NOTE' Pl minry NOT FOR CO NSTR UCTION.
The information is conceptual and sublet -110 acfuslments pending Whet
Vrllidllon Ind Monk. Ten ant In d Go vemmentai A gency a pprovals.
No wenn**
HTH Arc hitects, LLP - Copyright 2011 11.350. 06
4
The Gateway
A Project for TCD Enterprises Inc
47
„.,:r..-
4... .
4, )} I/ .‹
Temple City, California
Aerial Perspective
Febr uary 14, 2011
I
i JJ
NO TE: Pre liminary NOT FOR CONSTR UCTION.
The information is co nce ptual and subject to adjustments pending further
remotion end Client, Tenant an d Governmental Agency approv als.
No wa rran ties or gua rantees of any kind a re given or Implleo
HTH Architec ts , LLP - Copyright 2011 11350.06
•lYiiYi�.iY •
REGMAL
suPERF AFtxcf
s3s,caour
— nV0
rgs .
i
i
The Gatewa y
A Project for TCD Enterprises In c
i / 1,
11
11—
Temple City, California
Gr aphic Site Plan
February 14, 2011
7 J'
1
SCALP 1-.4,7 s
0 is 4 VS
•
1-
—11 L
T
a
—
3-
•
ILA I
t.
efr ,Kil u4
SU Pn LrikeieT
{57000.+
L,
Gateway Plaza Proje ct Descripti on
Temple Clty, Calif ornia
Situated at the North-East Int ersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Las
Tunas Dri ve, the Gateway Plaza serves as just that; an appr opriat e
entrance Into the City of Temple City with its strong, bold and well
proportion ed Mediterr anean Architecture.
The Pr oject is marked by tw o r estaurants at th e comer with a tower piece.
an eleg ant outd oor dini ng patio and lush landscaping: thus maki ng a nic e
urban approach la Rosemead with its civic edge to th e sidewalk while
dealing with limited vehicular access and good fl aw thr ough the sit e. Tw o
b uildings are designed with a second st ory offi ce which enhanc es the
vill ag e feel with varying heights and roof lin es . Us e of l andscap e and
building m at eri als add el eg ance to the pr oj ect and a sens e of arrival .
OPTION 'H-1' - OVERALL SUMMARY
SPACE
SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIRED
PARKING
BLDG 'A'
REGIONAL SUPER MARKET:
±35,009 SF
BLDG 'A'. RETAIL:
BLDG'S' - RETAIL:
12,800 SF
±11.700 SF
BLDG 'A'. OFFICE (2nd Flour): ±2,800 SF
BLDG 'Er -OFFICE (2 nd Flo or): 1.11,700 SF
BLDG 'C' - RESTAURANT: ±4,500 SF
BLDG 'D' -RESTAURANT: ±6,5005F
TOTAL GROSS SF: ±75,000 5F
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: 300 SPACES
1I0 SPACES
(4 PEJ 1000 SEl
11 SPACES
47 SPACES
(4 PE A 1000 59
11 SPACES
47 SPACES
[4 PER I000 SF]
18 SPACES
26 SPACES
(4 ree 1004 00)
TOTAL SURFACE PARKING PROPOSED:
TOTAL UNDERGROUND PARKING PROPOSED:
TOT AL PARKING PROPOSED:
129 SPACES
202 SPACES
331 SPACES
A-1
NO TE Preardne ry. NO T FOR CONSTR UCTION.
The Infmrni0oo fJ conce ptu al a nd subject to a djus tmen ts pe nd ing furthe r
verlEcelktri end Clien t Tenant and Govern menta l Agency appro vals.
No warranties ar gua ran te es of an y idn d am give n ar implie d
HTH Arch[ted, LLP Co pyright 2011 HTH 11. 350.06
The Gateway
A Project for TCD Enterprises inc
Temple City, California
Conceptual Site Plan
F ebruary 14, 2011
HTH:
ArCl-itects.
UNDERGROUND PARKING SUMMARY:
TOTAL UNDERGROUND PARKING PROVIDED: 202 SPACES
SCALE r• 41,
. -i07 ,
SECOND FLO OR SU MMARY
OFFICE (2nd Floor): ±11,700 SF
(1 PEA 1000 SF)
OFFICE (2nd Flo or): ±2 ,800 SF
(4 PER 1000 SF)
A-2
NOTE: Pre liminary, NOT FOR CONSTR UC TION,
The In leo rrria tion b co nc eptual and subject to adjus tments pe reng feather
ve d8nfion and CYard, Tenant, and Governmental Agency appmvets
No WIOnlntlm or guar antees of any kind are given or !marled.
IITH Architects, LLP Copyright 2011 HTH 11.350. 06
The Gateway
A Project for TCD Enterprises Inc
Temple City, California
Conceptual Site Plan
Febr uary 14, 2011
HTH
RI cllitects
BLDG 'A' - WEST ELEVATIO N
BLDG 'A' - EAST ELEVATION
a
A-3
BLDG 'A' - SO UTH ELEVATION
SCALE- 3111 .
BLDG 'A' - NO RTH ELEVATION
SCALE 3/;a r
SCM C. 3/Sp
SCA,.rn list" r -L'
NOTE: Preliminar y. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIO N.
The in fo rmation in conceptual and subject b a djus tments pending ru ther
vertlle ihion end Ceara. Tenant, a nd Gove rnmental Agency approvals
No wananbas or gua rantees of any kind are given or implied.
HTH Architects, LLP - Copyright 2011 11.350.06
The Gateway
A Project for TCD En terprises In c
Temple City, Calif ornia
Schematic Ele vations
February 14, 201,1,
HTH
Architects
BLDG - SOUTH ELEVATION
SCNF ]/.r - r'-9'
SLATE 1/32.. 1 n
BLDG 'B` - WEST ELEVATION
SCAT F '/.1). w 1 _ fl.
BLDG 'B' - EAST ELEVATION
5610 3/12'
(4,
A-4
NOTE: Pretmin my. NO T FO R CONSTRUC TION.
The Inforrnalio n is Conceptua l and suited to adjustments pending MIMr
verifica tion and C lien t Tenant, and Go vernmental Agency approvals,
No wa rranties or guarantees of any kin d are pIy n or implied.
HTH Architects, LLP - Copyright 2011 11.350.06
The Gateway
A Project for TCD Enterprises Inc
Temple City, California
Schematic Elevations
February 14, 2011
HTH
Aich=trcf.
BLDG 'D' - NORTH ELEVATION
O
BLDG 'D' - EAST ELEVATION
SU.'rt 5/J'.
44 4,
-4•410 -
fi "sr
BLDG '0' - WEST ELEVATION
3.=1C 3/3Y _ "-(.
I�Vtti • a.- •.
BLDG 'C - EAST ELEVATION
SC:IE. 3/32
s:. +ar 7/5t r -n'
SI,AR.] MA A
4p''.d
BLDG C - NORTH ELEVATI ON
tcn ,: x/59 , -a-
Mr ITTA B 1017—iff .10%AI 11171411111
0
111"1""1"7
f
BLDG '0' - WEST ELEVATI ON
SCALE, 3/3? -
A-5
NOTE: Pnriminry NO T FO R CONSTRUCTION.
The information is conceptual and subject to adjustments pendin g St ew
varillwrbn end Mel, Tenant. and Governmental Agency approvals.
No warranties or guarantees of a ny kind a re give n or imo:ied.
HTH Architects, LLP - Copyright 2011 11.350.08
The Gatewa y
A Project for TCD En terprises Inc
Temple City, California
Schematic Elevations
Febr uary 14, 2011
HTH
Architects
39• I
3
29>
Z',
31 1 9.
1 "Z 11.
1 1 L_-_1
1 ., i 1
�.� HER�e
MOSA DRIVE
43•
. ;5 33,
4 ;37
. 32
:4
33`
27,
Ca N
.V1� , 43r1 ro
�— --
39'1I W
3
iV
6
IINORTH
33>
29.
13.
7.
1
m Y �
L19
07,
03.
di J
jr
< 33 10 0. 1 1` I m ., L. 35 ---- i�'1 �I d1
• 32 CD �L{= terra _
..
`28 — — 1 1"377.-:: ZCO9-1741
Q .<I
.22
ib
i6T1di9
, 40
5jt
4306
CUP 11-7778
I.4U131.3J`+I ar.
3071 '
121
.36 I
< 34 . 34 .1 • t7, 34 1
32 . 32i
. 30
28 . 79}
22
20
.18
.15
. 14
011,
55.
51.
45.
9t
-
_.r e
• 34 1� � � 1.�.mmQ" m I
LYLEDALE STREET
• 28 aG I
251 I^ IW c1¢m 125•
24J L 1
. 58
. 64
62
56
< 52
40
. 44
. 72
48 , 49
70
t 35.
g; 3, 33.
1.1 '
t*,
...161 31
'
• 30
35,3,;TEMPLE CITY
.za vl
f _ l
GATEWAY PLAZA
I ?Si.1 23,
' 25— --
r __.m 1
. 15
2
06
M
•
O i S \
r
r,Q
} �,.bi' .'1'�, ,fi
.: iy :'•• sue '�.^,.. ��• A.Y'�h .1.-{
‘.
c. Li It' 44.:: IL!, LIA I
I .c l:: 'L? 1.
•y •
%
111E1: &t Otto
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent
Mitigated Negative Declaration
SCH No. 2006031046
Lead Agency:
City of Temple City
9701 Las Tunas Drive
Temple City, California 91780
626.285.2171
Contacts:
Mr. Steven M. Masura, Community Development Director
Mr. Joseph M. Lambert, Community Development Manager
Prepared by:
RBF Consulting
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 92618
949.472.3505
Contacts:
Ms. Collette Morse, AICP
Mr. Achilles Malisos
February 14, 2011
JN 10-106860
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 1-1
1.1 Introduction and Purpose 1-1
1.2 Statutory Authority and Requirements 1-1
1.3 CEQA Compliance 1-2
SECTION 2.0 - DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT REVISIONS 2-1
2.1 Project Location 2-1
2.2 Background and History 2-1
2.3 Characteristics of the Proposed Project Revisions/Additions 2-1
2.4 Project Approvals 2-4
SECTION 3.0 - INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 3-1
3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 3-1
3.2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-1
SECTION 4.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4-1
41 Aesthetics 4-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources 4-2
4.3 Air Quality 4-3
4.4 Biological Resources 4-4
4.5 Cultural Resources 4-5
4.6 Geology and Soils 4-5
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4-6
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4-7
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 4-8
4.10 Land Use and Planning 4-9
4.11 Mineral Resources 4-10
4.12 Noise 4-10
4.13 Population and Housing 4-13
4.14 Public Services 4-13
4.15 Recreation 4-14
4.16 TransportationlTraffic 4-14
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems 4-16
4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance 4-17
4.19 Conclusion 4-18
SECTION 5.0- INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES 5-1
SECTION 6.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.1
February 2011 1 Table of Contents
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
APPENDICES
A Greenhouse Gas Emissions
B Traffic Memorandum
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Paae
1 Regional Location 2-5
2 Local Vicinity 2-6
3 Revised Site Plan 2.7
4 Revised Site Plan — Subterranean and Second Floor 2-8
LIST OF TABLES
2-1 Comparison of Plaza Las Tuna Project (2006) to Gateway Plaza Project
(Proposed Project) Subterranean and Second Floor 2-3
February 2011 it Table of Contents
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction and Purpose
The City of Temple City (City) is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). On April 18, 2006, the City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) for the Piazza Las Tunas project. The proposal included up to 124,600
square feet of retail and restaurant space, up to 58 residential units, 792 parking spaces
contained within a parking structure and one subterranean parking level, and a loading/delivery
area. The project site is located at 9021 Las Tunas Drive in Temple City, at the northeast
corner of Las Tunas Drive and Rosemead Boulevard.
Since adoption of the IS/MND in 2006, the Applicant has proposed minor technical
changes/additions to the project. Namely, the project square footage has been reduced from
124,600 square feet to 75,000 square feet. The project has also been renamed as the Gateway
Plaza Project.
This Subsequent MND has been prepared by the City of Temple City of satisfy the requirements
of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
1.2 Statutory Authority and Requirements
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations, states the
following with respect to a Subsequent Negative Declaration:
(a) When an E1R has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency
determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one
or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions
of the previous E!R or negative declaration due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the seventy of
previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
previous E!R was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted,
shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous E1R or negative declaration;
February 2011 1-1 Introduction
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would
in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes
available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a
subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall
determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or
no further documentation.
1.3 CEQA Compliance
Following preliminary review of the proposed changes to the Piazza Las Tunas project, the City
of Temple City determined that the revised project (now called Gateway Plaza Project) is
subject to CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Guidelines.
The potential environmental consequences of the proposed changes to the project have been
thoroughly analyzed in this Subsequent MND with respect to the conditions cited above. The
proposed changes are substantial and require minor revisions to the adopted 1S/MND. Based
on the analysis presented in this document, the City has determined that none of the conditions
that warrant preparation of a Subsequent MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
The analysis in this Subsequent MND indicates all potential project -related environmental
impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation
measures. The mitigation measures included in this Subsequent MND are designed to reduce
or eliminate the potentially significant environmental impacts. This Subsequent MND has been
prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and will be submitted to the City's
decision -makers, along with the previous Final IS/MND (SCH No. 2006031046), for
consideration prior to taking action to approve the revised site plan.
This page intentionally left blank.
February 2011 1-2 Introduction
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT REVISIONS
2.1 Project Location
The project site is located in the County of Los Angeles, in the western portion of the City of
Temple City (City); refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Location. More specifically, the project site is
located at 9021 Las Tunas Drive, at the northeast corner of the intersection of Las Tunas Drive
and Rosemead Boulevard; refer to Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity. The east side of the project is
bordered by Sultana Avenue, and the north side is bordered by a short extension of Elm Avenue
east from Rosemead Boulevard, as well as residential uses (detached single-family homes).
The west side of the project site is bordered by Rosemead Boulevard. All of the proposed
changes would occur within the project site.
2.2 Background and History
Adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Piazza Las Tunas
(SCH No. 2006031046)
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the Piazza Las
Tunas Project. The project is described in detail in IS/MND Section 1, Project Description, and
involved a mix of residential and 124,600 square feet of commercial land uses on the project
site. The 2006 -approved Piazza Las Tunas Project land uses include the following:
• 58 Condominium Units
• 65,600 square feet Specialty Retail
• 32,000 square feet Retail
• 19,000 square feet Dine -In Restaurant
• 8,000 square feet Banquet Hall
Subsequently, the land use configuration of the Piazza Las Tunas Project has been revised and
the project name has been changed to the Gateway Plaza Project. A description of the current
Gateway Plaza project is described below in Section 2.3.
The 2006 -adopted IS/MND addressed the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects
associated with the Piazza Las Tunas project. The 2006 -adopted IS/MND was patterned after
the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist available at that time, and
evaluated all potential environmental impacts contained therein.
The IS/MND analysis concluded project implementation would result in no impact or less than
significant impact for the following ten environmental issue areas:
• Agriculture Resources • Land Use and Planning
• Biological Resources • Mineral Resources
• Cultural Resources • Population and Housing
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Public Services
• Hydrology and Water Quality • Recreation
February 2011
2-1 Description of Project Revisions
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
The ISIMND analysis also concluded project implementation would result in less than significant
impacts with mitigation incorporated for the following six environmental issue areas:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Geology and Soils
• Noise
• Transportation and Traffic
• Utilities and Service System
Overall, the analysis concluded that no significant impacts related to these aforementioned
issue areas were identified following implementation of mitigation measures andlor compliance
with applicable standards, adopted policies, andlor development standards prescribed in the
Temple City Municipal Code.
The Draft IS/MND for the Piazza Las Tunas was circulated for review and comment to public,
agencies, and organizations. The Draft IS/MND was also circulated to State agencies for
review through the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research. The 30 -day public
review period ran from March 3, 2006 to April 1, 2006. On April 18, 2006, the Temple City
Council adopted the Final IS/MND for the Piazza Las Tunas project. The City Council's
adoption of the IS/MND also included adoption of the Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program.
2.3 Characteristics of the Project Revisions
As discussed in Section 1.3, CEQA Comaliance, the proposed changes to the Piazza Las
Tunas project has necessitated preparation of this Subsequent IS/MND for the Gateway Plaza
project (formerly the Piazza Las Tunas project).
Recent refinements of the land uses include removal of the residential component and reducing
the building area. The proposed Gateway Plaza Project (proposed project) involves the
construction of up to 75,000 square feet of retail, office, restaurant, and regional supermarket,
332 parking spaces contained within surface and subterranean lots, and loading/delivery areas;
refer to Exhibit 3, Revised Site Plan and Exhibit 4, Revised Site Plan - Subterranean and
Second Floor.
The mix of land uses has changed slightly from the 2006 -approved project, and the proposed
square footage has been reduced to 75,000 square feet. This represents a 49,600 square foot
reduction from the approved Piazza Las Tunas Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(March 2006). The revised Gateway Plaza Project land uses include the following:
• 35,000 square feet Regional Supermarket
• 14,500 square feet Retail
• 14,500 square feet Office
• 11,000 square feet Restaurant
The proposed project includes the construction and operation of the proposed Gateway Plaza
Project, with associated parking improvements, on an approximately 3.6 -acre site (156,925
square feet).
February 2011 2-2 Description of Project Revisions
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 2-1 proves a comparison between the project approved in 2006, and the currently
proposed project.
Table 2-1
Comparison of Plaza Las Tuna Project (2006) to
Gateway Plaza Project (Proposed Project)
2006 -Approved Project
(Plaza La Tunas Project)
Proposed Project
(Gateway Plaza Project)
Use
DU1SF
Use
DU1SF
Condominium Units
58 DU
Specialty Retail
65,600 SF
Regional Supermarket
35,000 SF
Retail
32,000 SF
Retail
14,500 SF
Dine -In Restaurant
19,000 SF
Restaurant
11,000 SF
Banquet Hall
8,000 SF
Office
14,500 SF
Total
58 DU
126,000 SF
Total
75,000 SF
The proposed project will include two restaurants at the corner of Las Tunas Drive and
Rosemead Boulevard, along with a tower piece, an outdoor dining patio, and lush landscaping.
Two buildings are proposed, with a second -story office that promotes a village -feel with varying
heights and rooflines.
Access
Access to the project site would be provided along Las Tunas Drive and Elm Avenue. These
ingress and egress points would be for everyday patrons of the project to access the surface
and subterranean parking. Delivery truck access would be provided via Sultana Avenue. The
project site would have an access driveway and alley from Sultana Avenue that connects with
EIm Avenue. Delivery trucks would enter from Sultana Avenue to access the loading dock for
the proposed Regional Supermarket. Delivery trucks would then exit the project site via EIm
Avenue and turn right onto Rosemead Boulevard.
Parking
A total of 331 on -site parking spaces will be provided in both surface and underground parking;
129 and 202, respectively.
Construction Schedule
Project construction would occur over a 12- to 14 -month period, with building construction
lasting approximately 10 months. Existing structures have previously been demolished. Site
preparation would require six weeks prior to commencement of construction. Site access during
construction would occur from Las Tunas Drive and Rosemead Boulevard, with no construction
traffic permitted on residential streets.
February 2011 2-3 Description of Project Revisions
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.4 Project Approvals
The City of Temple City is the Lead Agency for the project and has discretionary authority over
the project which includes, but is not limited to, the following:
• Zone Change from MUZ (Mixed -Use) to C-2 (General Commercial) — Zone Change 09-
1741
• Conditional Use Permit to construct a shopping center having two or more units and more
than 30,000 square feet of area — Conditional Use Permit 11-1178
• CEQA Documentation — Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2011 2-4 Description of Project Revisions
Carmen
amid
Lake
Allmore Prru COUNTY
Santa
Clarlla
Cadmic
Caslarc
KERN
COUNTY
Lancaster
Palmdale
LOS ANGELES
VENTURA
COUNTY
Moorpark
Thousand
Oaks
. . a
crmeru TINfa
Simi
Valley
Agoura -1 Is
Weelloke
Village
HeWhall
Chatsworth
Woodland
Hills
Pacoima
Van
Nuys
Sherman
Oaks
Santa
Monica
Burbank
Glendale
Beverly Hollywood
Hills
Culver
City
Redondo Beach
5 10 miles
APPROMIATE
Inglewood
Hawthorne
Torrance
Los
Angeles
Monrovia
Pasadena Arcadia
Temple
Alhambra toy
South
Gale
Compton
Monterey
Park
Pico
ivera
Bellflower
Lakewood
a
Imda
Fullerton
Azure
Weal
Covina
Project Site
Anaheim
Palos
Verdes
l Eatalee ,�" < Long
San &I
Hununglon
Beech
Garden
Grove
Costa
Mese
Newport
Beach
San
Dimas
► Pomona r
ORANGE
COUNTY
Tustin
Claremont
/upland
Chino
GATEWAY PLAZA PROJECT • SUBSEQUENT MND
Regional Location
2)14111 JN 1040E6104 7264 WAS
Exhibit 1
e' a.
TJ1 , M R +14s, „DF DRIVE
..
k�'!n w - _
T • u�'1 ; ' s -- Yom,.
E�'' r � .. 4e` ar 1 n p a
1 ]; d. a!4i`i
Source: HTH Architects, Conceptual Site Plan, 2/11/11.
. . . .
CONSULTINQ 6 211{111 JN 10.1060B5•l72.4 I4 5
lair
APPIOXPAITE
GATEWAY PLAZA PROJECT • SUBSEQUENT MND
Revised Site Plan
Exhibit 3
MEAD BOULEVAR
ELM AVENUE
MYOA —
AVENUE
-- O
GPs
/ mops
MYOA
AVENUE
P�
S�p50
/ o5
-
SULTANA AVENUE
SECOND FLOOR SUMMARY
Office (2nd Floor): ± 11,700 si
(4 per 1000 si)
Office (2nd Floor): ± 2,800 si
(4 per 1000 si)
UNDERGROUND PARKING SUMMARY
Total Underground Parking Provided: 202 Spaces
Source: HTH Architects, Conceptual Site Plan, 2111111,
. . .
CONSULTING
0 100'
PPROXLMAIE
a+1o•1oeeeo.lrte4 way
GATEWAY PLAZA PROJECT • SUBSEQUENT MN'
Revised Site Plan
Subterranean and Second Floor
Exhibit 4
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
The Initial Study Checklist that follows later in this Section reflects CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G, adopted on December 30, 2009 and effective on March 18, 2010.
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" or "Less Than Significant Impact
With Mitigation Incorporated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X
Aesthetics
Land Use and Planning
Agriculture and Forest Resources
Mineral Resources
X
Air Quality
X
Noise
Biological Resources
Population and Housing
Cultural Resources
Public Services
X
Geology and Soils
Recreation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
X
TransportationlTraffic
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Utilities & Service Systems
Hydrology & Water Quality
Mandatory Findings of Significance
3.2 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project.
The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture & Forest Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation/Traffic
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Mandatory Findings of Significance
The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist
recommended by the CEQA Guidelines and used by the City of Temple City in their
environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as
part of this Initial Study's preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant
effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the potential impacts of and to identify mitigation
related to development from the proposed project.
February 2011
3-1 Initial Study Checklist
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated
and answers are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the rnitial Study. The
analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development
from the proposed project.
To each question, there are four possible responses:
• No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact
on the environment.
• Less Than Significant Impact. The development will have the potential for
impacting the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds
that are considered to be significant.
• Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development
will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant
effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the
development's physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to
levels that are less than significant.
• Potentially Significant Impact. The development will have impacts which are
considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation
measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required,
so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels.
February 2011
3-2 Initial Study Checklist
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Thar
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1.
AESTHETICS. Would the project.
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
X
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
X
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views In the area?
X
2.
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts fa agricultural resources are significant environments; effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Sita Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department 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 slate's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project
and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c. Conticl 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))?
X
d. Resod in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land b
non -forest use?
X
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?
X
3.
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance crifeda established by the applicable air qualxy management or airpollufion comb! district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the pitied:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
X
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
x
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)?
X
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
K
February 2011
3-3
Initial Study Checklist
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Pobsn6ally
Significant
impact
Lees Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Leas Than
Significant
Impact
Impact
4.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Week! the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c. Have a substantial adverse effect an 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?
X
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?
X
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
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?
X
5.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Woad the project:
_
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5?
X
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§15064,5?
X
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
X
—6.
d. Disturb any human remains, induding those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
X
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Vioadd the ,art + _
a, Expose people or structures to potential Substantial'
adverse effects, including the risk of loss. injury, Or death
involving:
1) Rupture of a knave earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alqulsl-Prlulc Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geelog*t for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
February 2011
3-4
Initial Study Checklist
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Leas Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Leas Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
3) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
X
4) Landslides?
X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
X
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?
X
d. Be located on expansive soil, as dented in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to Re or property?
X
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?
X
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the projecf.
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Worddihepmjecr:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
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?
X
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
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?
X
1. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project resuk in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
X
February 2011
3-5
Initial Study Checklist
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildiand fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would lhe project.
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off -site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
L Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the falure of a levee or darn?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Wib duitie uraple
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with any applicibie land use plan, poky, or
regulation of an icy with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, of zooiog ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an erriironmenlal
effect?
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
JMNI
Leas Than
Significant
Impact
x
X
X
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
February 2011
3.6 Initial Study Checklist
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Lase Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Lena Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
_
X
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. WouIdthe profeci.
a. Result in the bss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
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?
X
12. NOISE. Would the project muffin:
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?
X
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
X
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
X
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
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?
X
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?
X
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the payed:
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)?
X
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
14. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
February 2011
3-7
Initial Study Checklist
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
1) Fire protection?
2) Police protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other public facilities?
15. RECREATION.
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
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 potties, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilties, or
otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project -
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Less Than
Significant
Impact WIth
M itigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than
Signifiont
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
No
impact
X
February 2011
3-8
Initial Study Checklist
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
impact
Lase Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Leas Than
Significant
Impact
Na
Impact
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
constriction 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?
T. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, stale, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below sell -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 rnpacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
X
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
February 2011
3-9 Initial Study Checklist
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.
February 2011
3-10 Initial Study Checklist
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The purpose of this Section is to provide an analysis of the potential environmental
consequences that are anticipated to occur as a result of implementation of the proposed
revisions/additions to the Gateway Plaza Project (formerly the Piazza Las Tunas project).
Specifically, this Section analyzes the impacts associated with the revised site layout and the
overall reduction of development area. The characteristics of the proposed project are
described in Section 2.0, Description of Proiect Revisions.
4.1 AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely
nighttime views in the area?
trees, rock
site and its
affect day or
Impact Analysis: The 2006 IS/MND concluded that Plaza Las Tunas Project would have no
impact upon a scenic vista or scenic highway, as no scenic resources exist on or in the
immediate vicinity of the project site. Additionally, the on -site improvements would be
consistent with the City Municipal Code and would result in a less than significant light and glare
impact.
The 2006 IS/MND concluded the Plaza Las Tunas Project would be compatible with the
surrounding land uses and would not degrade the visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings. The proposed project revisions would reduce the scale and massing of the
proposed buildings. For example, the building heights are proposed to be reduced from 61 feet
to between 33 and 39 feet. The proposed project revisions include a 52 -foot tall tower on the
restaurant proposed in the southwestern corner of the project site. This structure would be
located furthest away from the residential uses that border the site to the north and is lower than
the 61 -foot building heights proposed by the previously approved Plaza Las Tunas Project. As
a result, these improvements would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the project site and its surroundings, given they would be located within a commercial
setting and would be compatible with the surrounding industrial land uses. Therefore, the
proposed project revisions would not degrade the visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings.
No new significant aestheticllight and glare impacts are involved, and the severity of previously
identified impacts would not increase as a result of the proposed project revisions. Compliance
with 2006 IS/MND Mitigation Measure AES-1 remains applicable to the proposed project.
February 2011 4-1 Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measures:
AES-1 To mitigate the adverse aesthetic impact on residences immediately north of the
project site created by the Parkieg-eif4dearo north wall of Building A and the block
h v p py line the applicant/developer will be required to
pursue one or more of the following options, at the direction of the City:
A. Design and construct a series of appropriately scaled arches that cover the
length of the north wall of Building A.
aresideetiet fa9ade-
•���_—__ _----"n --- •- - r .
pockets adjacent to the
with ver reen vin s or imil r I nd i r ire brow uo wagl_
��. Install and maintain yines -e#4h or similar nl landscaping
at the base of the north wall of Buildirig A a
setback. The landscaping shall be of a variety that discourages trespass and
access to the wall, and that is attractive and evergreen.
The design and treatment of the eg-etFueture north wall and Building A and the
block wall ad..cent to the northerly prope y line shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Community Director prior to issuance of buildina oer its on the protect
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Govemment
Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
e. involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non -forest use?
Impact Analysis: Implementation of the proposed project revisions would have no impact upon
farmlands, agricultural uses, or forest lands, as none are present on the project site or in its
February 2011
4-2 Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
vicinity. No new impacts to agriculture and forest resources are involved as a result of the
proposed project revisions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures were included in the 2006 IS/MND and no
mitigation measures are required for the proposed project revisions.
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact Analysis: The 2006 IS/MND concluded the Plaza Las Tunas Project would result in
less than significant construction -related emissions, with mitigation incorporated. The proposed
project revisions involve an overall reduction in the development intensity originally proposed for
the project site. The proposed project revisions include less building area and less density than
what was previously approved for the Plaza Las Tunas Project. As a result, the duration of
earthwork and the amount of soil exported would be reduced. Overall, the change in fugitive
dust emissions would decrease. Consistent with previous conclusions, the proposed project
revisions would result in less than significant construction -related air quality impacts, with
mitigation incorporated.
The 2006 IS/MND concluded the Plaza Las Tunas Project would result in less than significant
operational emissions, and no mitigation measures were required. The operational emissions
associated with the Plaza Las Tunas Project would be below SCAQMD thresholds. Consistent
with previous conclusions, the proposed project revisions would result in less than significant air
quality impacts from long-term operations (i.e., mobile and area source emissions).
No new significant air quality impacts are involved, and the severity of previously identified
impacts would not increase as a result of the proposed project revisions. Compliance with 2006
IS/MND Mitigation Measures AIR -1 through AIR -4 remains applicable to the proposed project.
It is noted that Global Climate Change impacts were not addressed in the 2006 IS/MND. Since
the preparation of the 2006 IS/MND, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist has been
revised to include a new category for Greenhouse Gas Emissions impacts. Accordingly, a
separate review has been conducted; refer to Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Mitigation Measures:
AIR -1 For the demolition phase of construction, the applicantlpermittee shall use a lean-
NOx catalyst on both on -and off -road diesel equipment to reduce NOx emissions.
February 2011 4-3 Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
AIR -2 For the building construction phase of construction, the applicantlpermittee shall use
cooled exhaust gas recirculation on both on -and off -road diesel equipment to reduce
NOx emissions.
AIR -3 The developer shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) content
architectural coatings during the construction of the project and in accordance with
SCAQMD regulations and guidelines.
AIR -4 All restaurant owners and/or operators shall be required to install emissions and odor
control devices required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and as
applicable, Los Angeles County Health Department regulations. Such systems shall
be installed and operable prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any such
restaurant.
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, 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?
Impact Analysis: The project site is located within a fully urbanized area of Temple City. The
following resources are not present on the proposed construction sites: candidate, sensitive, or
special status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; wetlands; and
wildlife corridor. The proposed project revisions would not conflict with any local policies or
ordinances relating to biological resources, and no Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural
Community Conservation Plans, or other approved plans apply to the site. Therefore,
consistent with previous conclusions, the proposed project revisions would have no effect on
biological resources.
No new significant biological resources are involved, and the severity of previously identified
impacts would not increase as a result of the proposed project revisions.
February 2011 4-4 Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures were included in the 2006 IS/MND and no
mitigation measures are required for the proposed project revisions.
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5?
b. Cause a .substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Impact Analysis: The 2006 IS/MND concluded the Plaza Las Tunas project would not result in
impacts involving archaeological/paleontological resources and human remains. Given the
disturbed conditions of the site, the potential to discover archaeologicaVpaleontological
resources or human remains is low. Consistent with previous conclusions, the proposed project
revisions would not result impacts involving archaeological/paleontological resources and
human remains. No new significant impacts involving archaeological/paleontological resources
and human remains would occur, and the severity of previously identified impacts would not
increase as a result of the proposed project revisions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures were included in the 2006 IS/MND and no
mitigation measures are required for the proposed project revisions.
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
1) 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.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
3) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
4) 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 California Building Code
(2004), creating substantial risks to life or property?
February 2011 4-5 Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
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?
Impact Analysis: The 2006 IS/MND concluded the Plaza Las Tunas Project would result in no
impact or less than significant impacts involving the exposure of people or structures to: rupture
of a known earthquake fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic -related ground failure;
landslides; unstable geologic units; and expansive, erosive, and unstable soils. The sites'
geologic and soil conditions previously identified in the 2006 IS/MND have not changed. The
Plaza Las Tunas Project required approximately 33,330 cubic yards of earth to be exported
from the site to accommodate the proposed buildings and subterranean portion of the parking
structure. Due to the reduced density of the proposed project revisions, approximately 15,000
cubic yards of earth would be exported from the project site. Although, the proposed project
revisions require less excavation than the previously approved Plaza Las Tunas Project,
implementation of 2006 IS/MND Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would still be required to reduce soil
erosion. Therefore, consistent with previous conclusions, the proposed project revisions would
result in less than significant impacts involving geology and soils with implementation of
Mitigation Measure GEO-1. No new significant impacts involving geology and soils would
occur, and the severity of previously identified impacts would not increase as a result of the
proposed project revisions.
Mitigation Measures:
GEO-1 Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be employed during all site preparation,
demolition, grading, and construction to ensure that all soil erosion and deposition
are contained within the construction site. Such BMPs may include, but are not
limited to, covering of the graded area or piled soil with straw or straw matting, and
use of water for dust control.
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Impact Analysis: The 2006 IS/MND did not include an analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions or quantification of the project's CO2 emissions from construction and operations
(indirect, area, and mobile sources). As a result, RBF Consulting prepared a Greenhouse Gas
Analysis (dated February 4, 2011) to supplement the Subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration; refer to Appendix A, Greenhouse Gas Analysis. As described in the Greenhouse
Gas Analysis, construction emissions would result in 871.21 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalents (MTCO2eq) between 2010 and 2012. Project operational emissions would result in
5,272.05 MTCO2eq/year after 2012. The project would incorporate sustainable design features
that include water, energy, solid waste, and transportation efficiency measures that would
reduce its GHG emissions 33.3 percent below the 'business as usual" scenario, and would
reduce the project's operational GHG emissions to 3,519.53 MTCO2eglyear. As a result, the
February 2011 4.6
Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
proposed project would be consistent with the goals of California Assembly Bill 32, which
requires a 28.5 percent reduction in GHG emissions from business as usual levels.
Furthermore, the proposed project revisions would generate fewer GHG emissions than the
1,600 -seat movie theater that was previously located on -site. Operations of the proposed
project revisions would result in a net reduction of 937.95 MTCO2eq/year. The proposed project
revisions also would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs. GHG emissions would be considered less than
significant. No new significant impacts involving global climate change would occur, and the
severity of previously identified impacts would not increase as a result of proposed project
revisions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures were included in the 2006 IS/MND and no
mitigation measures are required for the proposed project revisions.
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard fo 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?
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?
Impact Analysis: The 2006 IS/MND concluded no hazards or hazardous materials would
result from the Plaza Las Tunas Project. The proposed project revisions would have no impact
involving the routine use of hazardous materials. Additionally, the project site is not located on
a hazardous materials site. Consistent with previous conclusions, the proposed project
revisions would result in no impact involving the accidental release of hazardous materials.
Additionally, it is noted the project site is located two and a half miles from the El Monte Airport,
and project implementation would not result in a safety hazard. No new significant impacts
involving hazardous materials or airport -related safety hazard would occur, and the seventy of
previously identified impacts would not increase as a result of the proposed project revisions.
February 2011 4-7 Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures were included in the 2006 IS/MND and no
mitigation measures are required for the proposed project revisions.
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Impact Analysis: The 2006 IS/MND concluded the Plaza Las Tunas Project would result in no
impact or less than significant impacts involving groundwater supplies, substantial alterations to
drainage patterns, increased runoff volumes, flooding, and inundation. The site's hydrological
and drainage conditions previously identified in the 2006 IS/MND have not changed. Consistent
with previous conclusions, the proposed project revisions would result in less than significant
impacts involving hydrology and drainage.
The 2006 IS/MND also concluded the Plaza Las Tunas Project's construction -related activities
and long-term operations would result in a less than significant impact on water quality.
Consistent with previous conclusions, the proposed project revisions would result in less than
significant impacts to water quality. No new significant impacts involving hydrology and
drainage would occur, and the severity of previously identified impacts would not increase as a
result of the proposed project revisions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures were included in the 2006 IS/MND and no
mitigation measures are required for the proposed project revisions.
February 2011
44 Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
Impact Analysis: The 2006 IS/MND concluded that the Plaza Las Tunas Project would result
in no impact or less than significant impacts related to physically dividing an established
community, and conflicts with applicable plans, policies and habitat conservation plan/natural
community conservation plan. The proposed project revisions would not physically divide an
established community, as the project site is planned for commercial uses. Additionally, the
proposed project revisions would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan.
The 2006 IS/MND concluded the Plaza Las Tunas Project is compatible with the surrounding
commercial development and residential uses. The Plaza Las Tunas Project would be
consistent with the applicable City of Temple City plans, policies, and regulations, upon
obtaining the required approvals and permits identified in IS/MND Section 1.0, Project
Approvals. The proposed project revisions do not involve a change in land use type or
operations. The proposed project revisions would reduce the total gross square footage that
would be developed on the site and would not include the 58 residential units that were part of
the original project. As a result, the overall density, massing, and building heights of the
proposed project revisions would be reduced from what was previously approved. The site's
land use conditions previously identified in the 2006 IS/MND have not changed. Consistent with
previous conclusions, the proposed project revisions would result in less than significant
impacts in this regard.
Approval of the previous project included a zone change and a subdivision map, which would
not be necessary for the revised project. The subdivision map would not be required, as the
revised proposed project does not include condominiums. Additionally, approval of the original
project changed the zoning on the site from C-2 (General Commercial) to the Mixed -Use Zoning
(MUZ) designation. The proposed project revisions have eliminated the residential
condominiums from the site design. The revised project is seeking a Zone Change from MUZ
(Mixed -Use) to C-2 (General Commercial) and a Conditional Use Permit to construct a shopping
center having two or more units and more than 30,000 square feet of area to reflect the uses
currently proposed for the site.
Temple City Municipal Code Title 9, Article J, Section 9291 (Parking Spaces Required)
establishes the number of parking spaces required for each use. The proposed project
revisions include a total of 331 on -site parking spaces, which includes 300 required spaces,
resulting in a surplus of 32 spaces. 129 spaces would be accommodated within a surface lot,
while 202 spaces would be accommodated within an underground level. Adequate parking
would be provided for the proposed project and a less than significant impact would occur.
February 2011
4-9 Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
In conclusion, no new significant land use and planning impacts are involved, and the severity of
previously identified impacts would not increase as a result of the proposed project revisions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures were included in the 2006 IS/MND and no
mitigation measures are required for the proposed project revisions.
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Impact Analysis: The 2006 IS/MND concluded that the Plaza Las Tunas Project would result
in no impact to the loss of availability of known or locally -important mineral resources. The
proposed project revisions would have no impact mineral resources, as none are present on the
project site or in its vicinity. No new significant mineral resources impacts are involved, and the
severity of previously identified impacts would not increase as a result of the proposed project
revisions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures were included in the 2006 IS/MND and no
mitigation measures are required for the proposed project revisions.
4.12 NOISE
Would the project:
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 groundbome 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?
impact Analysis: The 2006 IS/MND concluded the Plaza Las Tunas Project would result in
less than significant construction -related noise, with mitigation incorporated. The proposed
project revisions would reduce the intensity of the development and would not increase the
development area or the number of construction workers. The reduced development intensity
would require less overall earthwork and grading activity, which would nominally reduce
February 2011
4-10 Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
construction -related noise. Consistent with previous conclusions, the proposed project revisions
would result in less than significant construction -related noise impacts, with mitigation
incorporated.
The 2006 IS/MND concluded the Plaza Las Tunas Project would result in less than significant
operational noise impacts, with mitigation incorporated. Noise associated with the proposed
project revisions would be similar to that associated with surrounding commercial uses.
Potential noise sources of concern to adjacent residents include trash collection activities, truck
loading/unloading, and late -hour activity associated with the restaurants. The proposed project
revisions would not locate stationary noise sources closer to nearby sensitive receptors.
The 2006 IS/MND identified that mitigation would be necessary to reduce impacts from truck
loading to a less than significant level. Reconfiguration of the site layout would locate the
loading docks for the proposed grocery store on the north side of the project site, adjacent to the
residences at the terminus of Myda Avenue. Generally, a sound wall needs to block the line of
sight between a source and a receiver to be effective. Based on revisions to the site plan, the
line of sight was between the loading dock and receivers were reviewed. The location of the
sound wall required in Mitigation Measure NOI-6 would need to be modified, as depicted in
Mitigation NOI-6. Additionally the wall height would need to increase from six feet to nine feet.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-6 would reduce loading dock impacts to a less than
significant level.
Consistent with previous conclusions, the proposed project revisions would result in less than
significant noise impacts from long-term operations (i.e., mobile and stationary sources), with
mitigation incorporated. No new significant noise impacts are involved, and the severity of
previously identified impacts would not increase as a result of the proposed project revisions.
Compliance with 2006 IS/MND Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-8 remains applicable to
the proposed project revisions. However, Mitigation Measure NOI-8 has been modified to
remove language specific for banquet halls, which are no longer proposed, and Mitigation
Measure NOI-9 is no longer applicable since no aboveground parking structure would be
constructed.
Mitigation Measures:
NOI-1 Construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M.
during the week and 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays. No construction activity
shall occur on holidays or Sundays.
NOI-2 All heavy construction equipment and all stationary noise sources such as diesel
generators shall have manufacturer -installed mufflers.
NOI-3 The project developer/applicant shall post a telephone number and name of a
contact person for registering comments or complaints regarding construction noise.
Such signage shall be posted in a clearly visible area along Rosemead Boulevard,
Las Tunas Drive, and Sultana Avenue. All complaints shall be given to the City
Planning Department on a daily basis.
NOI-4 Truck deliveries shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.
February 2011
4-11 Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
NOI-5 All mechanical equipment shall be acoustically shielded to levels that achieve the
noise/land use compatibility criteria set forth in the City's General Plan Noise
Element.
NOI-6 A 96 -foot -high block wall shall be erected along the north property line, extending
from the northeast corner of the project site west
stfaet4oe-Fie4th along the property line past tewatds Myda Avenue and west to a point
coinciding with the edge of the rear of the residence immediately adjacent to Elm
Avenue, as shown on the figure belo - -
coordinate the design of the wall with the project developer.
The City will
NOI-7 Signs shall be posted at all parking structure exits cautioning drivers to maintain
quiet and respect neighbors as they leave the site.
NOI-8 As part of the conditions of approval, the City shall reserve
the right to limit the hours of operation of restaurants as a
means of reducing on -site noise in response to any prolonged, documentable
evidence of noise conflicts.
February 2011
4-12
Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.'13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a. induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or 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?
Impact Analysis: The 2006 IS/MND estimated that the 58 condominium units in the approved
project would increase the City's population by approximately 116 people, and determined this
would be a less than significant impact. The revised proposed project does not include any
residential dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed project revisions would not increase the
City's population, resulting in fewer impacts than the previously proposed project. No new
population and housing impacts are involved, and the severity of previously identified impacts
would decrease as a result of the proposed project revisions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures were included in the 2006 IS/MND and no
mitigation measures are required for the proposed project revisions.
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
a. Would the project result in .substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection?
2) Police protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other public facilities?
Impact Analysis: The 2006 IS/MND concluded the Plaza Las Tunas would result in less than
significant impact for all public services. Similar to the Plaza Las Tunas Project, the proposed
project revisions would have a less than significant impact upon fire and police protection,
school, and recreational facilities. The revised proposed project is an infill development that has
been previously accommodated by public facilities and services. The revised proposed project
includes the development of 49,600 less square feet than the Plaza Las Tunas Project.
Additionally, the revised proposed project does not include the 58 dwelling units. As a result, no
new significant impacts to public services would occur, and the seventy of previously identified
impacts would decrease as a result of the proposed project revisions.
February 2011 4-13 Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures were included in the 2006 IS/MND and no
mitigation measures are required for the proposed project revisions.
4.15 RECREATION
Would the project:
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?
Impact Analysis: Refer to discussion in Section 3.14, Public Services, above.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures were included in the 2006 IS/MND and no
mitigation measures are required for the proposed project revisions.
4.16 TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
Would the project:
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.
Impact Analysis: It is noted that off-street parking was analyzed in IS/MND Section 2.15,
Transportation/Traffic. However, since adoption of the 2006 ISIMND, the CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G has been revised to exclude parking as an environmental issue area.
Notwithstanding, off-street parking is analyzed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.
The 2006 IS/MND concluded the Plaza Las Tunas Project would result in less than significant
impacts to the study area intersections. The revised proposed project includes less
development than what was previously approved. According to the Gateway Project Traffic
Review, prepared by RBF Consulting (January 25, 2011) and included in Appendix B, the
proposed project revisions is forecast to generate 212 less daily trips, which includes 64 net
February 2011 4-14 Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
new A.M. peak hour trips and approximately 44 net new P.M. peak hour trips. Since forecast
A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation of the proposed project revisions is equal to or less
than trip generation forecast for the previously approved Plaza Las Tuna Project, no additional
traffic impacts are expected due to the proposed project revisions.
Consistent with previous conclusions, the proposed project revisions would result in less than
significant impacts in this regard. Mitigation Measures TRA-1, TRA-2, and TRA-4 would still be
required to provide proper circulation and access for the project. Mitigation Measure TRA-2 will
be modified to remove the reference to residential traffic and add the reference to office traffic.
However, Mitigation Measure TRA-3 would not be required as it was originally included to
mitigate impacts from the previously proposed parking structure. The proposed project
revisions would not include access to parking from Sultana Avenue. Additionally, the proposed
project revisions would have no impact upon alternative modes of transportation or emergency
access to the project site, since access to the project would be constructed to Temple City
Standards. Additionally, the Fire Department would review the project plans for compliance with
the City's emergency access guidelines.
In conclusion, no new significant transportation and circulation impacts are involved, and the
severity of previously identified impacts would not increase as a result of the proposed project
revisions.
Mitigation Measures:
TRA-1
Access to delivery truck loading area, and the
subterranean residential parking will be provided via Elm Avenue. Elm Avenue will
be striped to provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane. The Elm Avenue at
Rosemead Boulevard driveway will offer full northbound and southbound inbound
access, but will be limited to right -turn only egress. Westbound and eastbound left -
turn and through movements will not be allowed. Physical barriers, paint, and
signage will be provided to ensure the intended ingress and egress operations. Also,
a 35 -foot curb return will be provided on the southeast comer of Rosemead
Boulevard/Elm Avenue to facilitate easier right -turns for project traffic (refer to Figure
10 of the Traffic Study in Appendix D, March 2006 IS/MND).
loading dock. and exit to Rosemead Boulevard via Elm Avenue,
monitor potential commercial traffic intrusion into neigitorhoods adjacent to the
project to determine if turn restrictions are rewired exiting the site at the Sultana
Avenue Driveway_,
Transportation Department staff to ensure accommodation of westbound vehicle
lanes. a bus stop. and a dedicated right -turn lane at the Rosemead Boulevard/Las
Tunas Drive inte lion. Applicant will prepare roadway signing and striping plan on
Las Tunas Drive in the project vicinity for review and approval by City Transportation
Department staff.
February 2011
4-15 Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
the-egreemeRt.
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
February 2011 4-18 Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Impact Analysis: The 2006 IS/MND concluded that the Plaza Las Tunas Project would result
in no impact or less than significant impact for all utilities. The proposed project revisions would
have no impact upon water or wastewater transmission or treatment facilities, storm water
drainage, water supplies, or landfill capacities, as no new land uses are involved.
The 2006 IS/MND concluded that the existing wastewater infrastructure will continue to serve
the project site and the Plaza Las Tunas Project would not generate wastewater exceeding
existing treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board or require
alternative treatment approaches. Additionally, a Sewer Flow Monitoring Study performed for
the Plaza Las Tunas Project indicated that the estimated daily wastewater flow well within the
capacity of the trunk sewers that serve the site. The 2006 IS/MND also found that the Sunny
Slope Water Company would have sufficient supplies for the Plaza Las Tunas Project. The
proposed project revisions include less development than the Plaza Las Tunas Project.
Therefore, the proposed project revisions would have a less than significant impact on water or
wastewater transmission or treatment facilities.
Implementation of the Plaza Las Tunas Project was not determined to increase surface runoff
significantly or produce a substantial amount of solid waste. The proposed project revisions
would reduce the amount and density of development on the project site. Therefore, the
amount of surface runoff would not increase, and solid waste generation would decrease from
what was analyzed for the Plaza Las Tunas Project. No new significant impacts to utilities and
service systems would occur, and the severity of previously identified impacts would decrease
as a result of the proposed project revisions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures were included in the 2006 IS/MND and no
mitigation measures are required for the proposed project revisions.
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Impact Analysis: The 2006 IS/MND concluded the project site does not contain any
threatened or endangered species, sensitive habitat, or cultural or historical resources, since the
site is currently developed and surrounded by urban uses. The Plaza Las Tunas Project would
not degrade the environment or adversely impact human beings. The proposed project
revisions involve reductions to building square footages and the elimination of the 58 residential
February 2011
4.17 Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
dwelling units. The site's environmental conditions previously identified in the 2006 IS/MND
have not changed. Therefore, consistent with previous conclusions, the proposed project
revisions would result in less than significant individual and cumulative impacts in this regard.
No new impacts are involved, and the severity of previously identified impacts would not
increase as a result of the proposed project revisions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures were included in the 2006 IS/MND and no
mitigation measures are required for the proposed project revisions.
4.19 CONCLUSION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 states that a lead agency is required to recirculate an
IS/MND when a document has been substantially revised after public notice of its availability
has previously been given. Recirculation is not required when new information is added to the
IS/MND, which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the document.
The project revisions described above in Section 2.0, Description of Project Revisions, result in
reductions to the density and area of development. However, the project design has undergone
substantial changes and significant modifications that require circulation of this Subsequent
MND. As demonstrated in the impact analysis provided above, no new significant impacts or
substantial increase in the severity of impacts would occur upon implementation of the revised
project.
This document has been made a part of the administrative record and transmitted to the City's
decision -making body along with the previously -approved IS/MND to provide clarification
regarding proposed changes outlined above and to comply with CEQA Guidelines Section
15162.
February 2011
4-18 Environmental Analysis
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
5.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
AESTHETICS
AES-1 To mitigate the adverse aesthetic impact on residences immediately north of the
project site created by the perki+ig-s re nQrtb wall of Building A and the block
wall adjacent to the northerly property line, the applicant/developer will be required to
pursue one or more of the following options, at the direction of the City:
A. Design and construct a series of appropriately scaled arches that cover the
length of the north wall of Building A.
erreeidleftiet-fege,
B. Install and maintain a "green screen" on and/or vine pockets adjacent to the
plock wall on the northerly property lines The landscaping shall be planted
with evergreen vines or similar landscaping trained to grow up the wall.
Q. Install and maintain vines o form of thorny or similar vertical landscaping
at the base of the north wall of Building A a
setbaek. The landscaping shall be of a variety that discourages trespass and
access to the wall, and that is attractive and evergreen.
The design and treatment of the pafciog-s4Riettoe north wall and BuildingA and the
block wall adjacent to the oortheriy property line shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Community Director prior to issuance of building permits on the project
AIR QUALITY
AIR -1 For the demolition phase of construction, the applicantlpermittee shall use a lean-
NOx catalyst on both on -and off -road diesel equipment to reduce NOx emissions.
AIR -2 For the building construction phase of construction, the applicantlpermittee shall use
cooled exhaust gas recirculation on both on -and off -road diesel equipment to reduce
NOx emissions.
AIR -3 The developer shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) content
architectural coatings during the construction of the project and in accordance with
SCAQMD regulations and guidelines.
February 2011
5-1 Inventory of Mitigation Measures
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
AIR -4 All restaurant owners and/or operators shall be required to install emissions and odor
control devices required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and as
applicable, Los Angeles County Health Department regulations. Such systems shall
be installed and operable prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any such
restaurant.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1 Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be employed during all site preparation,
demolition, grading, and construction to ensure that all soil erosion and deposition
are contained within the construction site. Such BMPs may include, but are not
limited to, covering of the graded area or piled soil with straw or straw matting, and
use of water for dust control.
NOISE
NOI-1 Construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M.
during the week and 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays. No construction activity
shall occur on holidays or Sundays.
NOI-2 All heavy construction equipment and all stationary noise sources such as diesel
generators shall have manufacturer -installed mufflers.
NOI-3 The project developer/applicant shall post a telephone number and name of a
contact person for registering comments or complaints regarding construction noise.
Such signage shall be posted in a clearly visible area along Rosemead Boulevard,
Las Tunas Drive, and Sultana Avenue. All complaints shall be given to the City
Planning Department on a daily basis.
NOI-4 Truck deliveries shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.
NOI-5 All mechanical equipment shall be acoustically shielded to levels that achieve the
noise/land use compatibility criteria set forth in the City's General Plan Noise
Element.
NOI-6 A 96 -foot -high block wall shall be erected along the north property line, extending
from the northeast corner of the project site west
sir-kiskoo=1494414 along the property line laast 4841.0E0446 Myda Avenue and west to a point
coinciding with the edge of the rear of the residence immediately adjacent to Elm
Avenue, as shown on the figure below. The City will coordinate the design of the
wall with the project developer.
February 2011 5-2 Inventory of Mitigation Measures
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
NOI-7 Signs shall be posted at all parking structure exits cautioning drivers to maintain
quiet and respect neighbors as they leave the site.
NOI-8 As part of the conditions of approval, the City shall reserve
the right to limit the hours of operation of restaurants as a
means of reducing on -site noise in response to any prolonged, documentable
evidence of noise conflicts.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
IRA -1 Parking ctruoturo oeeocG, Access to delivery truck loading area, and the
subterranean residential parking will be provided via Elm Avenue. Elm Avenue will
be striped to provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane. The Elm Avenue at
Rosemead Boulevard driveway will offer full northbound and southbound inbound
access, but will be limited to right -turn only egress. Westbound and eastbound left -
turn and through movements will not be allowed. Physical barriers, paint, and
signage will be provided to ensure the intended ingress and egress operations. Also,
a 35 -foot curb return will be provided on the southeast comer of Rosemead
February 2011
5-3 Inventory of Mitigation Measures
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Boulevard/Elm Avenue to facilitate easier right -turns for project traffic (refer to Figure
10 of the Traffic Study in Appendix D, March 2006 IS/MND).
loading dock. and exit to Rosemead Boulevard via ElmAvenue
monitor ghborhoods adjacent to the
project to determine if turn restrictions are required exiting the site at the Sultana
Avenue Driveway.
Transportation Department staff to ensure accommodation of westbound vehicle
Tunas Drive inters-ction. Aonli
Las Tunas Drive in the •roiect vicinityfor review and approval by G.t Tran •ortation
p_epartment staff.
r
the-agroorno#:
February 2011 5.4 Inventory of Mitigation Measures
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Section 4.0 and Section 5.0 of this Subsequent IS/MND identify the mitigation measures that will
be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the Gateway Plaza Project. The
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6,
which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and
ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development.
As stated in Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code,
. .. the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the
changes to the project which it has adopted, or made a condition of project
approval, in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.
CEQA Section 21081.6 provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring
programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced
during project implementation, shall be defined prior to final certification of the IS/MND.
The mitigation monitoring table below lists those mitigation measures that may be included as
conditions of approval for the proposed project. These measures correspond to those
summarized in Section 5.0 and discussed in Section 4.0. To ensure that the mitigation
measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies
the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. The project applicant will have the
responsibility for implementing the measures, and various departments of the City of Temple
City will have the primary responsibility for monitoring and reporting the implementation of the
mitigation measures.
Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame!
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Aesthetics
To address the massing issue of
the parking structure, design
features have been inoorporaled
inb the project that indude
setting the wall bad( 20 feet from
the property line and utilizing
expensive landscaping to break
up the mass and guard against
graffiti. Mitigation measure AES-
1 is required b ensure
implementation of design
teatments necessary b avoid
impact.
AES-1 To mitgale the adverse aesthetic impact on
residences immedialely north of the project site
creased by the pefiiiwoOdekffie north wall of Building,
A and the_block wall adjacent to the northedproperty
line, the applicant/developer will be required b pursue
one or more of the following options, at the direction of
the City:
A. Design and construct a series of appropriately
scaled arches that cover the length of the north
wall of Fit iilrtinp A.
" X
R Install and maintain a 'green screen" on and/or
vine pocket edjarent rn the binck wall nn the
Monitoring will occur
prior b issuance of
a building permit
Temple City
Community
Development
Director
February 2011
6-1 MMRP
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
northerly properly line The landscaping shame
planted with Qverpreen vines or similar
Iandscapingjraspedbo prow up_treyrati,
.C6. fnshall and maintain ]ones a—iem-o -hsmy or
similar vertical landscaping at the base of the
ncdh wall of Building A
2C-feet aek. The landscaping shall be of a
variety that discourages trespass and access b
the wall, and fiat is attractive and evergreen.
The design and treatment of the poilfirigretreetere north
wall and Building A Byrd the block wall adjacent to the
northedv nrnpRrly line shall be reviewed and approved
by he City Community Direcbr prior b issuance of
hutting permits on tie project
Air Quality
NOx emissions associated with
building construction will exceed
the SCAQMD threshold without
the implementation of mitigation.
AIR -1 For he demolition phase of construction, the
applicantlpermittee shall use a lean-NOx catalyst on
both on -and off -road diesel equipment to reduce NOx
emissions.
AIR -2 For the building construction phase of construction, the
applicantlpermittee shall use cooled exhaust gas
recirculation on both on -and off -road diesel equipment
b reduce NOx emissions.
Verification will
occur prior b and
during construction.
Monibring will occur
during
Temple City
Planning
Department
ROG emissions (also known as
Volatile Organic Compounds, or
VOC) associated with building
architectural coatings during
construction will exceed the
SCAQMD threshold without the
implementation of mitigation.
AIR -3 The developer shall use zero Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) content architectural coatings during
the construction of the project and in accordance with
SCAQMD regulations and guidelines.
Verification will
occur prior b
construction.
Monitoring will occur
during construction.
Temple City
Planning
Department
following mitigation measure
is imposed on to project to
ensure compliance with
SCAQMD reputations and odor
control
AIR -4 All restaurant owners and/or operabrs shall be required
b install emissions and odor control devices required by
he South Coast Air Quality Management District and as
applicable, Los Angeles County Health Deparment
regulations. Such systems shall be installed and
operable prior b he issuance of occupancy permits for
any such restaurant
Monibring will occur
during construction
and be =WedThe
before anal sign off
on the building
pe g
Monibring will occur
whenever a change
in restaurant owners
and/or operators
occurs.
Temple City
Planning
Department
Geology and Solis
The project will require
approximately 33,330 cubic
yards of earn b be exported
from the site lo accommodate
he proposed buildings and
subterranean portion of the
parking structure and will require
soil erosion control.
GEO-1 Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be employed
during all site preparation, demolition, grading, and
construction to ensure that all sod erosion and
deposition are contained within the construction site.
Such BMPs may include, but are nollimited b, covering
of the graded area or piled soil with straw or straw
mating, and use of water for dust control.
Monibring wilt occur
during construction.
Temple City Public
Works Department
February 2011
6-2
MMRP
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Noise
The adjacent residential lots will
be attected by short-term
construction noise when grading
occurs. Construction noise is a
potential impact on the adjacent
residential structures.
The adjacent residential lots will
be affected by shorl-Tenn
construction noise when grading
ocwrs and by long-lem
operations of the mixed -use
development Construction and
operational noise is a potential
impact on the adjacent
residential structures.
The adjacent residential lots will
be affected by long-term
operations of the mixed -use
development Operational noise
is a potential impact on the
adjacent residenlief structures.
The adjacent residential lots will
be affected by long-term
operations of the mixed -use
development Operational noise
is a potential impact on
tie adjacent residential
structures.
NOI-1 Construction activities shall be limited to the hours
between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. during the week and
8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays. No
construction activity shall occur on holidays or
Sundays.
NOI-2 All heavy construction equipment and all stationary
noise sources such as diesel generators shall have
manufacturer -installed mufflers.
NOI-3 The project developer/applicant shall post a telephone
number and name of a contact person br registering
comments or complaints regarding construction noise.
Such signage shall be posted in a dearly visible area
along Rosemead Boulevard, Las Tunas Drive, and
Sultana Avenue. AU complaints shall be given to the
City Planning Department on a daily basis.
NOI-4 Truck deliveries shall be limited to the hours between
7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.
Monitoring will occur
during construction.
Monibring will occur
during construction
and operations.
Temple City
Planning
Department
The adjacent residential lots will
be affected by long-term
operations of the mixed -use
development Operational noise
is a potential impact on the
adjacent residential structures.
NOI-5 All mechanical equipment shall be acoustically
shielded to levels that achieve the noise/and use
compatibility criteria set brth in the City's General Plan
Noise Element
NOI•6 A %-foot-high block wall shall be erected along the
north property line, extending from the northeast
corner of the project site west nepkweel-eati 9
loo 1unki—g4mQ4Wo-ReNb along the properly line past
lewaidc Myda Avenue and west to a point coinciding
with the edge of the rear of the residence immediately
adjacent to Elm Avenue. The City will coordinate the
design of the wall with the project developer.
N01.7 Signs shall be posted at all parking structure exits
cautioning drivers b maintain quiet and respect
neighbors as they leave the site.
NOI-8 As part of the 6weleppeeeiAgr.en'wnl conditions of
normal, the City shall reserve the right to limit the
hours of operation of t►e—lefReeet—tiffeiliti and
restaurants as a means of reducing on-slte noise in
response to any prolonged, documentable evidence of
noise conflicts.
6-3
Monibring will occur
during operations.
Monitoring will occur
during operations.
Monitoring will occur
during operations.
Monibring will occur
during operations.
Mamie ingarill•eewr
iltaiiiiesee4oeben
eeil-epsfalisee.
Temple City
Planning
Department
Temple City
Planning
Department
Temple City
Planning
Departrnent
Temple City
Planning
Deparfrnent
Temple City
Planning
Department
February 2011
MMRP
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Transportalion!Traff is
As design lea lures of the project,
mitigation measures TRA-1
Ihrough TRA-4 will ensure the
project impact al the
intersections of Sultana
Avenue/Las Tunas Drive and
EIm Avenue/Rosemead
Boulevard will be reduced.
TRA-1
TRA-2
TRA 3
delivery truck
loading area, and the subterranean residential parking
will be provided via Elm Avenue. Elm Avenue will be
striped b provide one inbound lane and one oubound
lane. The EIm Avenue at Rosemead Boulevard
driveway will offer full northbound and southbound
inbound access, but will be limited to right -lam only
egress, Westbound and eastbound left -turn and
through movements will not be allowed. Physical
barriers, paint, and signage will be provided b ensure
the intended ingress and egress operations. Also, a
35 -fool curb return will be provided on the southeast
comer of Rosemead BoulevardlElm Avenue b
facilitate easier right -turns br project traffic (refer b
Figure 10 of the Traffic Study in Appendix D, arch
7006 IS/MND)
Large truck circulation at site will enter al Sultana
Avenue Driveway hark into loading deck and exit in
Rosemead Bnulevardyia Flm Avenue
_Sultana Avenue striping willuelnain mabhing existing
conditions City staff wfil monitor potential commerciat
traffic intrusion loth neighborhoods adjacent b fhg
project lo determine If kim restricliges are required
Axiing the siip at the Sultana Avenue_Ddyewa .
TRA-4 The Las Tunas Drive curb edge adjacent he project
will be coordinated wilh City Transportalion
Deperfinenl sign b ensure aconmmodalian of
westhound vehicle lanes, alius_stop, and a dedical d
right -rum lane at the Rosemead Boulevardll aslunas
f] inleraactinn. Applicant will preparejpadway,
signing and striping plan an I as Tunas Drive injhe
project virxnIty hr review and approval by City
Transportation Deparfrne t staff
6-4
Verification will
occur prior b
construction.
Monibring will occur
during construction.
Temple City Public
Works Department
and Planning
Department.
February 2011
MMRP
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2011 6.5 MMRP
Gateway Plaza Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.
February 2011 6.6 MMRP
Appendix A
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
FEW
■ • ■
CONSULTING
PLANNING IN DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION
GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
for the
Gateway Plaza Project
City of Temple City
County of Los Angeles, State of California
Consultant:
RBF CONSULTING
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 92618
Contact: Mr. Eddie Torres, MINCE, REA
Director of Technical Studies
949.855.3612
February 10, 2011
JN 10-106860
■ ■ ■
C0NBULTINQ
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 Project Location 3
1.2 Project Description 3
2.0 EXISTING SETTING 9
2.1 Environmental Setting 9
2.2 Global Climate Change Gases 12
3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 15
4.0 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 21
5.0 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ANALYSIS 25
6.0 REFERENCES 33
6.1 List of Preparers 33
6.2 Documents 33
6.3 Web Sites/Programs 34
APPENDIX A — EMISSIONS MODELING DATA
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
February 10, 2011
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
CONSULi1NW
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1— Regional Vicinity 4
Exhibit 2 — Local Vicinity 5
Exhibit 3 — Site Plan 6
Exhibit 4 — The Greenhouse Effect 10
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 — Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions 26
Table 2 — Project Consistency with the Attorney General's Recommendations 28
Greenhouse Gas Analysis ii February 10, 2011
MIIF
CUN0ULTIN0
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AB Assembly Bill
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CAT Climate Action Team
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CARB California Air Resources Board
CAFE corporate average fleet fuel economy
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
GHG greenhouse gas
GWh gigawatt hour
GWP global warming potential
H2O water vapor
HCFCs hydrochlorofluorocarbons
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
HPLV high pressure low volume
IPCC International Panel for Climate Change
kWh kilowatt hour
LEDs light emitting diodes
LOS level of service
MTCO2eq metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
MWh megawatt hour
N20 nitrous oxide
03 ozone
PFCs perfluorocarbons
ppm parts per million
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCS sustainable community strategy
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
VMT vehicle miles traveled
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
iii February 10, 2011
PBF . .
cDNBULTiNp
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Protect
This page intentionally left blank.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis iv February 10, 2011
■ • •
CDNOULTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
The purpose of this Greenhouse Gas Analysis is to supplement the approved Piazza Las Tunas
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (March 2006) and evaluate short- and long-term
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed Gateway
Plaza (formerly Piazza Las Tunas) project (project).
The proposed project is located in the northeast corner of the Rosemead Boulevard/Las Tunas
Drive intersection in the City of Temple City. The east side of the project site is bordered by
Sultana Avenue, and the north side is bordered by a short extension of Elm Avenue east from
Rosemead Boulevard, as well as residential uses (detached single-family homes). The west side
of the project site is bordered by Rosemead Boulevard. The project site currently consists of 3.6
acres of vacant land. The proposed Gateway Plaza project involves the construction of up to
75,000 square feet of supermarket, retail, office, and restaurant uses, 332 parking spaces
contained within a parking structure, and a loading/delivery area.
Based upon the results of the analysis, construction emissions would result in 871.21 metric tons
of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2eq) between 2010 and 2012. Project operational emissions
would result in 5,272.05 MTCO2eq/year after 2012. The project would incorporate sustainable
design features that include water, energy, solid waste, and transportation efficiency measures
that would reduce its GHG emissions 33.3 percent below the "business as usual" scenario, and
would reduce the project's operational GHG emissions to 3,519.53 MTCO2eq/year. As a result,
the proposed project would be consistent with the goals of California Assembly Bill 32, which
requires a 28.5 percent reduction in GHG emissions from business as usual levels. Furthermore,
the proposed project would generate fewer GHG emissions than the 1,600 seat movie theater
that was previously located on site. Operations of the proposed project would result in a net
reduction of 937.95 MTCO2eq/year. GHG emissions would be considered less than significant.
Additionally, the proposed project would not conflict with an adopted plan, policy, or
regulation pertaining to GHGs.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 1 February 10, 2011
�I ■ ■ ■
CoNBULTINO
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
This page intentionally left blank.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 2 February 10, 2011
a ■ R
CONBULTINO
1.0 INTRODUCTION
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
The purpose of this Greenhouse Gas Analysis is to evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Gateway Plaza project in the City of
Temple City.
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Gateway Plaza project is located in Temple City, California; refer to Exhibit 1. Regional
Vicinity. Specifically, the project site is located at 9021 Las Tunas Drive, on the northeast corner
of Las Tunas Drive and Rosemead Boulevard; refer to Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity. The east side of
the project site is bordered by Sultana Avenue, and the north side is bordered by a short
extension of Elm Avenue east from Rosemead Boulevard, as well as by residential uses
(detached single-family homes). The west side of the project site is bordered by Rosemead
Boulevard.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background
The City of Temple City approved the Piazza Las Tunas Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration in March 2006, which included a mix of residential and 124,600 square feet of
commercial land uses on the project site. The approved Piazza Las Tunas project land uses
include the following:
• 58 Condominium Units;
• 65,600 square feet Specialty Retail;
■ 32,000 square feet Retail;
■ 19,000 square feet Dine -In Restaurant; and
• 8,000 square feet Banquet Hall.
Subsequently, the land use configuration of the Piazza Las Tunas project has been revised and
the project name has been changed to the Gateway Plaza project. A description of the current
Gateway Plaza project is provided below.
Project Characteristics
Recent refinements to the land uses have included removal of the residential component and
reducing the building area. The proposed Gateway Plaza project (project) involves the
construction of up to 75,000 square feet of retail, office, restaurant, a regional supermarket, 332
parking spaces contained within surface and subterranean lots, and loading/delivery areas;
refer to Exhibit 3, Site Plan.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 3 February 10, 2011
Moorpark
Thousand
Oaks
Gorman
VENTURA
COUNTY
Simi
Valley
Westlake
Village
Malibu
is
. . .
KERN
COUNTY
Newhall
Santa
ClavHe
Sylmar
Chatsworth
Burbank
Woodland
Hills
Sherman
Oaks
Lancaster
Palmdale
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
Project Site
Monrovia
Pasadena
Arcadia
Temple
C
Beverly Hollywood
Hills
Santa
Monica
Culver
City
Marks Del pay\
Playa DO Rey\
ElSequndo,l
Manhatlan Beath
Redondo Beach
Los
Angeles
Inglewood South
Gale
Hawthorne
R L,
sales
Verdes -
Estates
map
c y
San ; Minch •
Pedro �� _—
o
if
C4.
Compton
Monterey
Park
Pica
IVera
Lakewood
0 5 10 miles
ureelaMre
Azusa
Weal
Covina
WhmGier Le Habra
Heighls
Brea
Anaheim
Garden
Grove
Santa
Ana
Huntington
Beach
Beath
GATEWAY PLAZA PROJECT • GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
Claremont
San
01mss
Pomona
Verbs
Inda
ORANGE
COUNTY
Tustin
Chino
Like
Forest
Regional Location
CONSULTING l 1IJ1J 1JN1Q10eeea-1Men u•c
Exhibit 1
Source; PITH Architects, Conceptual Site Plan, 2111/11,
11 ■ ■
CON 61J LT I N G 1 7/14/11 .IN 10.101660.17264 MAe
100'
1F
GATEWAY PLAZA PROJECT • GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
Site Plan
Exhibit 3
■ • •
CONS Li 1.11 P4 Cil
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
The mix of land uses has changed slightly from the previous proposal, and the proposed square
footage has been reduced to 75,000 square feet. This represents a 49,600 square foot reduction
from the approved Piazza Las Tunas Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (March 2006).
The revised Gateway Plaza project land uses include the following:
• 35,000 square feet Regional Supermarket;
• 14,500 square feet Retail;
• 14,500 square feet Office; and
• 11,000 square feet Restaurant.
The proposed project includes the construction and operation of the proposed Gateway Plaza
project, with associated parking improvements, on an approximately 3.6 -acre site (156,925
square feet).
Construction Schedule
Project construction would occur over a 12 to 14 month period, with building construction
lasting approximately 10 months. Existing structures have previously been demolished. Site
preparation would require six weeks prior to commencement of construction. Site access
during construction would occur from Las Tunas Drive and Rosemead Boulevard, with no
construction traffic permitted on residential streets.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 7 February 10, 2011
r • ■
CONoULTINca
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
This page intentionally left blank.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 8 February 10, 2011
w ■ i r
CONBU1:rING
2.0 EXISTING SETTING
2.]. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Pro)ect
The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere is called the "greenhouse
effect."' The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a three -fold process,
summarized as follows: short wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the
Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long wave radiation; and GHGs in the upper
atmosphere absorb this long wave radiation and emit this long wave radiation into space and
toward the Earth. This "trapping" of the long wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward
the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect. This process is illustrated in
Exhibit 4, The Greenhouse Effect.
California is a substantial contributor of global GHGs, emitting over 400 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) a year.2 Climate studies indicate that California is likely to see an increase of
three to four degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20)
are also important GHGs that potentially contribute to global climate change. GHGs are global
in their effect, which is increasing the earth's ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere.
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature,
precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may
result from:
• Natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's orbit
around the sun;
• Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation, reduction
in sunlight from the addition of GHGs and other gases to the atmosphere from volcanic
eruptions); and,
• Human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., through burning fossil
fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization,
desertification).
The impact of anthropogenic activities on global climate change is readily apparent in the
observational record. For example, surface temperature data shows that 11 of the 12 years from
1995 to 2006 rank among the 12 warmest since 1850, the beginning of the instrumental record
for global surface temperature.3 In addition, the atmospheric water vapor content has increased
since at least the 1980s over land, sea, and in the upper atmosphere, consistent with the capacity
of warmer air to hold more water vapor; ocean temperatures are warmer to depths of 3,000 feet;
The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth's surface to 10 to 12
kilometers.
2 California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: I990 lo 2004, 2006.
3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for
Policymakers, February 2007.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 9 February 10, 2011
Wir
Solar radintlon passes through
the clear atmosphere
°Wen; U +IEF a nd {, RrD• Arent al, www.grida.ruddlirrneteMlatfinina.hirn, a eceased Ja•.. ;Erf ?nn+?
Some solar radiatsaai is
irei(e ted by the atrn phere
G A
Some or the :°rifrmed
rodialit}n 1p s 5 through
rlic atmosphere and is
lost m space
Some of the infrared radiation Is
absorbed and re-omItied by the
greenho use gas molecules . The
direct effect is the warming of the
earth's surface and the troposphere.
ca lac_ gal 4+r a3 t' ft
-infrared radiation is erratttecl Aiah1
S roar energy is absorbed Ole l ho
ear4Ms tiu rface dr':CI ''i i 5 ;t .. and is converted rnic heat ca t isi4irg'
the emission of lonowave 0 -Waled)
r8dl .iariorY bi..ck 10 Yxil:' IlinoSpherr
— -v
GATEWAY PLAZA PROJECT • GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
The Greenhouse Effect
CONSULTING 1fJ1r1I JM10-1Of10C•17M1 M AS
Exhibit 4
■ • •
CONBULTING
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
and a marked decline has occurred in mountain glaciers and snow pack in both hemispheres,
along with a decline in polar ice and ice sheets in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions.
Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to
determine the global atmospheric variation of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide from
before the start of the industrialization period (around 1750) to over 650,000 years ago. For that
period, it was found that carbon dioxide concentrations ranged from 180 ppm to 300 ppm. For
the period from around 1750 to the present, global carbon dioxide concentrations increased
from a pre -industrialization period concentration of 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005
value far exceeding the upper end of the pre -industrial period range.
The primary effect of global climate change has been a rise in average global tropospheric
temperature of 0.2 degrees Celsius (°C) per decade, determined from meteorological
measurements worldwide between 1990 and 2005.4 Climate change modeling using year 2000
emission rates shows that further warming would occur, which would include further changes
in the global climate system during the current century.5 Changes to the global climate system
and ecosystems and to California would include, but would not be limited to:
• The loss of sea ice and mountain snow pack resulting in higher sea levels and higher sea
surface evaporation rates with a corresponding increase in tropospheric water vapor due
to the atmosphere's ability to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures;6
• Rise in global average sea level primarily due to thermal expansion and melting of
glaciers and ice caps and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets;?
• Changes in weather that include widespread changes in precipitation, ocean salinity, and
wind patterns, and more energetic extreme weather including droughts, heavy
precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and the intensity of tropical cyclones;&
• Decline of the Sierra snow pack (which accounts for approximately half of the surface
water storage in California) by 70 percent to as much as 90 percent over the next 100
years;9
• Increase in the number of days conducive to ozone formation by 25 to 85 percent
(depending on the future temperature scenario) in high ozone areas of Los Angeles and
the San Joaquin Valley by the end of the 21st century;'° and
• High potential for erosion of California's coastlines and sea water intrusion into the Delta
and levee systems due to the rise in sea level."
4 Ibid.
Ibid.
6 Ibid.
J Ibid.
Ibid.
9 California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to Governor
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature (Executive Summary), March, 2006.
so Ibid.
11 ibid.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
11 February 10, 2013
Kir
CONSULTING'
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
While there is broad agreement on the causative role of GHGs to climate change, there is
considerably less information or consensus on how climate change would affect any particular
location, operation, or activity. The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) is a group
established by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment
Programme in 1988. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open, and
transparent basis the scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information relative to
understanding the scientific basis of risk from human induced climate change, its potential
impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC has published numerous reports
on potential impacts of climate change on the human environment. These reports provide a
comprehensive and up-to-date assessment of the current state of knowledge on climate change.
Despite the extensive peer review of reports and literature on the impacts of global climate
change, the IPCC notes the fact that there is little consensus as to the ultimate impact of human
interference with the climate system and its causal connection to global warming trends.
2.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE GASES
The most abundant GHGs are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Many other trace gases have
greater ability to absorb and re -radiate long wave radiation; however, these gases are not as
plentiful. For this reason, and to gauge the potency of GHGs, scientists have established a
Global Warming Potential for each GHG based on its ability to absorb and re -radiate long wave
radiation. The Global Warming Potential of a gas is determined using carbon dioxide as the
reference gas with a Global Warming Potential of one (1).
GHGs include, but are not limited to, the following:12
• Water Vapor (H20). Although water vapor has not received the scrutiny of other GHGs, it
is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect. Natural processes, such as
evaporation from oceans and rivers, and transpiration from plants, contribute 90 percent
and 10 percent of the water vapor in our atmosphere, respectively.
The primary human -related source of water vapor comes from fuel combustion in motor
vehicles; however, this is not believed to contribute a significant amount (less than one
percent) to atmospheric concentrations of water vapor. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change has not determined a Global Warming Potential for water vapor.
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide is primarily generated by fossil fuel combustion in
stationary and mobile sources. Due to the emergence of industrial facilities and mobile
sources in the past 250 years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has
12 All Global Warming Potentials are given as 100 -year Global Warming Potential. Unless noted otherwise, all
Global Warming Potentials were obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, The Science of Climate Change — Contribution of
Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, 1996).
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 12 February 10, 2011
■
coma UV' NUI
Pir
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
increased 35 percent.13 Carbon dioxide is the most widely emitted GHG and is the
reference gas (Global Warming Potential of 1) for determining Global Warming
Potentials for other GHGs.
• Methane (CH4). Methane is emitted from biogenic sources, incomplete combustion in
forest fixes, landfills, manure management, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. In the
United States, the top three sources of methane are landfills, natural gas systems, and
enteric fermentation. Methane is the primary component of natural gas, which is used
for space and water heating, steam production, and power generation. The Global
Warming Potential of methane is 21.
• Nitrous Oxide (N20). Nitrous oxide is produced by both natural and human -related
sources. Primary human -related sources include agricultural soil management, animal
manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel,
adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. The Global Warming Potential of
nitrous oxide is 310.
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary
refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam
blowing is growing, as the continued phase out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) gains momentum. The Global Warming Potential of
HFCs range from 140 for HFC-152a to 6,300 for HFC-236fa.14
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Perfluorocarbons are compounds consisting of carbon and
fluorine. They are primarily created as a by-product of aluminum production and semi-
conductor manufacturing. Perfluorocarbons are potent GHGs with a Global Warming
Potential several thousand times that of carbon dioxide, depending on the specific PFC.
Another area of concern regarding PFCs is their long atmospheric lifetime (up to 50,000
years).15 The Global Warming Potential of PFCs range from 5,700 to 11,900.
• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Sulfur hexafluoride is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic,
nonflammable gas. It is most commonly used as an electrical insulator in high voltage
equipment that transmits and distributes electricity. Sulfur hexafluoride is the most
potent GHG that has been evaluated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
with a Global Warming Potential of 23,900. However, its global warming contribution is
not as high as the Global Warming Potential would indicate due to its low mixing ratio
compareda7 to carbon dioxide (4 parts per trillion [ppt) in 1990 versus 365 parts per million
[ppm]).16
In addition to the six major GHGs discussed above (excluding water vapor), many other
compounds have the potential to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Some of these substances
13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of United States Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2008,
April 2010.
14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, High GWP Gases and Climate Change, June 22, 2010.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
13 February 10, 2011
r ■ ■
CDNSULTINQa
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Pro}ect
were previously identified as stratospheric ozone (03) depletors; therefore, their gradual phase
out is currently in effect. The following is a listing of these compounds:
• Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical
composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air
conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, all developed countries that
adhere to the Montreal Protocol are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out
of HCFCs. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap
by 2030. The Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range from 93 for HCFC-123 to 2,000
for HCFC-142b.17
▪ 1,1,1 trichloroethane. 1,1,1 trichloroethane, or methyl chloroform, is a solvent and
degreasing agent commonly used by manufacturers. The Global Warming Potential of
methyl chloroform is 110 times that of carbon dioxide.18
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs are used as refrigerants, cleaning solvents, and aerosol
spray propellants. CFCs were also part of the EPA's Final Rule (57 FR 3374) for the phase
out of a depleting substances. Currently, CFCs have been replaced by HFCs in cooling
systems and a variety of alternatives for cleaning solvents. Nevertheless, CFCs remain
suspended in the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect. CFCs are potent
GHGs with Global Warming Potentials ranging from 4,600 for CFC 11 to 14,000 for CFC
13.19
17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Global Warming Potential for
Ozone Depleting Substances, November 7, 2006.
16 Ibid.
19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Class I Ozone Depleting Substances, March 7, 2006.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 14 February 10, 2011
■ 1. rn
CONSULTING
3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) to define national ambient air quality standards (national standards) to protect public
health and welfare in the United States. The FCAA does not specifically regulate GHG
emissions; however, on April 2, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, determined that GHGs are pollutants that can be regulated
under the FCAA. The U.S. EPA adopted an endangerment finding and cause or contribute
finding for GHGs on December 7, 2009. Under the endangerment finding, the Administrator
found that the current and projected atmospheric concentrations of the six, key, weI]-mixed
GHGs (CO2, CH4, N20, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) threaten the public health and welfare of current
and future generations. Under the cause of contribute finding, the Administrator found that the
combined emissions of these well -mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare.
Based on these findings, on April 1, 2010, the U.S. EPA finalized the light -duty vehicle rule
controlling GHG emissions. This rule confirmed that January 2, 2011, is the earliest date that a
2012 model year vehicle meeting these rule requirements may be sold in the United States. On
May 13, 2010, the U.S. EPA issued the final GHG Tailoring Rule. This rule set thresholds for
GHG emissions that define when permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.
Implementation of the Federal rules is expected to reduce the level of emissions from new
motor vehicles and large stationary sources.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California's contribution to GHG emissions
have raised awareness that, even though the various contributors to and consequences of global
climate change are not yet fully understood, global climate change is occurring, and that there is
a real potential for severe adverse environmental, social, and economic effects in the long term.
Every nation emits GHGs and as a result makes an incremental cumulative contribution to
global climate change; therefore, global cooperation will be required to reduce the rate of GHG
emissions enough to slow or stop the human -caused increase in average global temperatures
and associated changes in climatic conditions.
Executive Order S-1-07. Executive Order S-1-07 proclaims that the transportation sector is the
main source of GHG emissions in California, generating more than 40 percent of statewide
emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in
California by at least ten percent by 2020. This order also directs the California Air Resources
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
15 February 10, 2011
II • N
CONBULT1N0
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
Board (CARB) to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could be adopted
as a discrete early -action measure as part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32.
Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which
statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The Executive Order directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency
(Cal/EPA) to coordinate a multi -agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The
secretary will also submit biannual reports to the governor and California Legislature
describing the progress made toward the emissions targets, the impacts of global climate
change on California's resources, and mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts.
To comply with the executive order, the secretary of Cal/EPA created the California Climate
Action Team (CAT), made up of members from various State agencies and commissions. The
team released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by
building on the voluntary actions of California businesses, local governments, and communities
and through State incentive and regulatory programs.
Executive Order S-13-08. Executive Order S-13-08 seeks to enhance the State's management of
climate impacts including sea level rise, increased temperatures, shifting precipitation, and
extreme weather events by facilitating the development of State's first climate adaptation
strategy. This will result in consistent guidance from experts on how to address climate change
impacts in the State of California.
Executive Order S-14-08. Executive Order S-14-08 expands the State's Renewable Energy
Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S-21-09
(signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of
electricity sold in the State come from renewable sources by 2020. CARB adopted the
"Renewable Electricity Standard" on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable
energy by 2020 for most publicly owned electricity retailers.
Executive Order S-20-04. Executive Order S-20-04, the California Green Building Initiative,
(signed into law on December 14, 2004), establishes a goal of reducing energy use in State-
owned buildings by 20 percent from a 2003 baseline by 2015. It also encourages the private
commercial sector to set the same goal. The initiative places the California Energy Commission
(CEC) in charge of developing a building efficiency benchmarking system, commissioning and
retro-commissioning (commissioning for existing commercial buildings) guidelines, and
developing and refining building energy efficiency standards under Title 24 to meet this goal.
Executive Order 5-21-09. Executive Order S-21-09, 33 percent Renewable Energy for California,
directs CARE to adopt regulations to increase California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 16 February 10, 2011
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
CONSULTINGI
to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002) which established the California RPS
program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006) which advanced the
20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005
Energy Action Plan II.
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 20061. California passed the
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code
Division 25.5, Sections 38500 - 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market
mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on
statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990
levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used
to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if
the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to
control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.
Assembly Bill 1493. AB 1493 (also known as the Pavley Bill) requires that CARB develop and
adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve "the maximum feasible reduction of GHG
emitted by passenger vehicles and light -duty trucks and other vehicles determined by CARB to
be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State."
To meet the requirements of AB 1493, CARB approved amendments to the California Code of
Regulations (CCR) in 2004 by adding GHG emissions standards to California's existing
standards for motor vehicle emissions. Amendments to CCR Title 13, Sections 1900 and 1961
and adoption of 13 CCR Section 1961.1 require automobile manufacturers to meet fleet -average
GHG emissions limits for all passenger cars, light -duty trucks within various weight criteria,
and medium -duty weight classes for passenger vehicles (i.e., any medium -duty vehicle with a
gross vehicle weight rating less than 10,000 pounds that is designed primarily to transport
people), beginning with the 2009 model year. Emissions limits are reduced further in each
model year through 2016. When fully phased in, the near -term standards will result in a
reduction of about 22 percent in GHG emissions compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet,
while the mid-term standards will result in a reduction of about 30 percent.
Assembly Bill 3018. AB 3018 established the Green Collar Jobs Council (GCJC) under the
California Workforce Investment Board (CWIB). The GCJC will develop a comprehensive
approach to address California's emerging workforce needs associated with the emerging green
economy. This bill will ignite the development of job training programs in the clean and green
technology sectors.
Senate Bill 97. SB 97, signed in August 2007 (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007; PRC Sections
21083.05 and 21097), acknowledges that climate change is a prominent environmental issue that
requires analysis under CEQA. This bill directs the Governor's Office of Planning and Research
(OPR), which is part of the State Natural Resources Agency, to prepare, develop, and transmit
to CARB guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions (or the effects of GHG
emissions), as required by CEQA.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
17 February 10, 2011
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
CQNBuLTINO
OPR published a technical advisory recommending that CEQA lead agencies make a good -faith
effort to estimate the quantity of GHG emissions that would be generated by a proposed
project. Specifically, based on available information, CEQA lead agencies should estimate the
emissions associated with project -related vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage,
and construction activities to determine whether project -level or cumulative impacts could
occur, and should mitigate the impacts where feasible. OPR requested CARB technical staff to
recommend a method for setting CEQA thresholds of significance as described in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.7 that will encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis
of GHG emissions throughout the State.
The Natural Resources Agency adopted the CEQA Guidelines Amendments prepared by OPR,
as directed by SB 97. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administration Law approved the
CEQA Guidelines Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the
California Code of Regulations. The CEQA Guidelines Amendments became effective on
March 18, 2010.
Senate Bill 375. SB 375, signed in September 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), aligns regional
transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing
allocation. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable
communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use
allocation in that MPOs regional transportation plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs, will
provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and
light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated
every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions
technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. CARB is also charged with
reviewing each MPO's SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not
meet the GHG reduction targets, transportation projects may not be eligible for funding
programmed after January 1, 2012.
Senate Bills 1078 and 107. SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) requires retail sellers of
electricity, including investor -owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at
least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. SB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes
of 2006) changed the target date to 2010.
Senate Bill 1368. SB 1368 (Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006) is the companion bill of AB 32 and was
signed into law in September 2006. SB 1368 required the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) to establish a performance standard for baseload generation of GHG emissions by
investor -owned utilities by February 1, 2007. SB 1368 also required the CEC to establish a
similar standard for local publicly owned utilities by June 30, 2007. These standards could not
exceed the GHG emissions rate from a baseload combined -cycle, natural gas —fired plant.
Furthermore, the legislation states that all electricity provided to California, including imported
electricity, must be generated by plants that meet the standards set by CPUC and CEC.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 18 February 10, 2011
s ■ • •
CONSULTING'
CARB SCOPING PLAN
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Scoping Plan, which functions as a roadmap to
achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted
regulations. CARB's Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to
reduce CO2eq emissions by 174 million metric tons (MT), or approximately 30 percent, from the
State's projected 2020 emissions level of 596 million MT CO2egZ0 under a business as usual
(BAU)2' scenario. This is a reduction of 42 million MT CO2eq, or almost ten percent, from 2002
to 2004 average emissions, but requires the reductions in the face of population and economic
growth through 2020.
CARB's Scoping Plan calculates 2020 BAU emissions as the emissions that would be expected to
occur in the absence of any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate was
derived by projecting emissions from a past baseline year using growth factors specific to each
of the different economic sectors (e.g., transportation, electrical power, commercial and
residential, industrial, etc.). CARB used three-year average emissions, by sector, for 2002 to
2004 to forecast emissions to 2020. At the time CARB's Scoping Plan process was initiated, 2004
was the most recent year for which actual data was available. The measures described in
CARB's Scoping Plan are intended to reduce the projected 2020 BAU to 1990 levels, as required
by AB 32. However, the San Francisco Superior Court has recently issued a tentative ruling that
if issued as proposed, would suspend the implementation of the Scoping Plan pending
additional CEQA review (further discussed below).
In Association of Irritated Residents, et al. v. California Air Resources Board, et al., the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Francisco (Superior Court) issued a "tentative
statement of decision" (Tentative Decision) that prevents CARB from implementing a state-wide
GHG regulatory program under AB 32 until the agency complies with the requirements of
CEQA AB 32, the State's landmark 2006 climate change statute, required CARB to develop a
regulatory program to reduce state-wide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In response to
this mandate, the Board of CARB already approved a first set of comprehensive regulations in
December 2010; the regulations were based on an earlier "Scoping Plan" developed by the
CARB staff. The Tentative Decision partially grants a petition for a writ of mandate brought by
a coalition of environmental justice organizations (Petitioners) that alleged that CARB's Scoping
Plan violated both AB 32 and CEQA. Although the Superior Court denied all claims related to
AB 32, the court found that CARB: 1) failed to adequately discuss and analyze the impacts of
alternatives in its proposed Scoping Plan as required by its CEQA implementing regulations;
and 2) improperly approved the Scoping Plan prior to completing the environmental review
required by CEQA. In upholding the Petitioners' challenge on these two CEQA issues, the
�0 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CCheq) - A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse
gases based upon their global warming potential.
2' "Business as Usual" refers to emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of GHG reductions. See
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm. Note that there is significant controversy as to what BAU
means. In determining the GHG 2020 limit, CARB used the above as the "definition." It is broad enough to
allow for design features to be counted as reductions.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis • 19 February 10, 2011
or r w
CONSULTING
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
Superior Court issued a Peremptory Writ of Mandate and enjoined CARB from further
implementation of the Scoping Plan until it complies with all CEQA requirements. Parties to
the case have 15 days from the issuance of the Tentative Decision to file objections before the
Superior Court issues a final decision in the case.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 20 February 10, 2011
w . .
CDNBULTINIR
4.0 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
At this time, there is no absolute consensus in the State of California among CEQA lead
agencies regarding the analysis of global climate change and the selection of significance
criteria. In fact, numerous organizations, both public and private, have released advisories and
guidance with recommendations designed to assist decision -makers in the evaluation of GHG
emissions given the current uncertainty regarding when emissions reach the point of
significance. That being said, several options are available to lead agencies.
First, lead agencies may elect to rely on thresholds of significance recommended or adopted by
State or regional agencies with expertise in the field of global climate change (see CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.7(c)). However, to date, neither CARB nor SCAQMD have adopted
significance thresholds for GHG emissions for residential or commercial development under
CEQA.22 CARB has suspended all efforts to develop a threshold, and SCAQMD's threshold
remains in draft form. Accordingly, this option (i.e., reliance on an adopted threshold) is not
viable for the City of Temple City.
Second, lead agencies may elect to conclude that the significance of GHG emissions under
CEQA is too speculative. However, this option is not viable due to the important focus on
global climate change created by the various regulatory schemes and scientific determinations
cited in this section.
Third, lead agencies may elect to use a zero -based threshold, such that any emission of GHGs is
significant and unavoidable. However, this type of threshold may indirectly truncate the
analysis provided in CEQA documents and the mitigation commitments secured from new
development, and could result in the preparation of extensive environmental documentation for
even the smallest of projects, thereby inundating lead agencies and creating an administrative
burden. Moreover, because the GHG analysis is a cumulative analysis, a zero based threshold
would be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(3), which requires that
cumulatively significant impacts, such as GHG emissions, be "cumulatively considerable", as
defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3).
u Of note, in December 2009, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District adopted guidance for
use by lead agencies in the valley, in assessing the significance of a project's GHG emissions under CEQA. The
guidance relies on the use of performance -based standards, and requires that projects demonstrate a 29 percent
reduction in GHG emissions, from business -as -usual, to determine that a project would have a less than
significant impact. The guidance is for valley land use agencies and not applicable to areas outside the district.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted its own GHG thresholds of significance on
June 2, 2010. The threshold is based on quantitative standards including a per capita emission standard and
project emission standard as well as a qualitative standard based on compliance with a qualified GHG reduction
strategy. The BAAQMD thresholds are based on an analysis of local inventories of GHG emissions and local
reduction programs; therefore, they would not be an appropriate basis for a GHG significance threshold in the
City of Temple City.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
21 February 10, 2011
■ IN ■
=MOULTING
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
Fourth, lead agencies may elect to utilize their own significance criteria, so long as such criteria
are informed and supported by substantial evidence. Recent amendments to the CEQA
Guidelines, and specifically the addition of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, subdivision (b),
support the selection of this significance criterion:
"A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when assessing the
significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment:
(1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions
as compared to the existing environmental setting;
(2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead
agency determines applies to the project;
(3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements
adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or
mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by
the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or
mitigate the project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If
there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are
still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted
regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project".
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines also has been revised to provide some guidance regarding
the criteria that may be used to assess whether a project's impacts on global climate change are
significant. The Appendix G environmental checklist form asks whether a project would: (i)
generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment; or (ii) conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
Based on the above factors (and particularly the adopted addition of CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.4, subdivisions (b)(2) and (b)(3)), it has been determined that it is appropriate for the City
of Temple City to rely on AB 32 implementation guidance as a benchmark for purposes of this
EIR and use the statute to inform the City's judgment as to whether the proposed project's GHG
emissions would result in a significant impact (refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064,
subdivision [f][1]). Accordingly, the following significance criterion is used to assess impacts:
Will the project's GHG emissions impede compliance with the GHG emissions reductions mandated in
AB 32?
The GHG emission levels will be analyzed to determine whether project approval would
impede compliance with the GHG emissions reduction mandate established by the AB 32,
which requires that California's GHG emissions limit be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. As
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 22 February 10, 2011
■ r ■
CONSULTING
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
noted in the Scoping P1an23, a reduction of 28.5 percent below the "business as usual" scenario is
required to meet the goals of AB 32.24 Therefore, should the project reduce its GHG emissions
by 28.5 percent or greater, impacts would be less than significant.
The environmental analysis in this section relative to GHGs is patterned after the Initial Study
Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, and used by the City of Temple
City in its environmental review process. The issues presented in the Initial Study Checklist
have been utilized as a framework to analyze the project's significance based upon the
threshold presented above. Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental
impact if it causes one or more of the following to occur:
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment; refer to the impact analysis for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions; and/or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases; refer to impact analysis for Consistency with
Applicable GHG Plans, Policies or Regulations, below.
23 California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change, adopted December
2008.
24 "Business as Usual" refers to emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of GHG reductions. See
lutp://www.arb.ca.goviccLinventry/data/ orecast.htm. Note that there is significant controversy as to what BAU
means. In determining the GHG 2020 limit, CARB used the above as the "definition." It is broad enough to
allow for design features to be counted as reductions.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
23 February 10, 2011
RIP, IF
goH6ULTIWm
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 24 February 10, 2011
li ■ ■ ■
CONSULTING
5.0 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
GHG-J GENERATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT?
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.
Direct Project Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
Direct project -related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area
sources, and mobile sources. Table 1. Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, estimates the CO2,
NzO, and CH4 emissions of the proposed project. The project is not anticipated to generate
other forms of GHG emissions in quantities that would facilitate a meaningful analysis.
Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms of GHG emissions.
The URBEMIS 2007 version 9.2.4 computer model was used to calculate CO2 emissions for
direct sources. The URBEMIS 2007 model relies upon trip data within the Gateway Project Traffic
Review and project specific land use data to calculate emissions. Estimations are based on
energy emissions from natural gas usage, as well as automobile emissions. As depicted in Table
1 GHGs associated with area sources and mobile sources would be 150.25 MTCOzeq/year, and
4,295.88 MTCO2eq/year, respectively. GHG emissions from construction are typically
amortized over the lifetime of the proposed project (30 years) and later added to the total
operational emissions.�5 Total project -related direct operational emissions would result in
4,446.25 MTCO2eq/year (without amortized construction emissions).
Indirect Project Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
Electricity Consumption. Energy Consumption emissions were calculated using factors from the
U.S. Energy Information Administration,26 and project -specific land use data provided by the
Applicant; refer to Appendix A, Emissions Modeling Data. As a result, the project would
indirectly result in 790.51 MTCO2eq/year due to electricity usage; refer to Table 1.
Water Suvply. Water demand for the proposed uses would be approximately 17 million gallons
per year, based on typical end usage rates for restaurant, commercial, and office uses. As
indicated in the Piazza Las Tunas Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (March 2006), the
project's water supply would be provided by the Sunny Slope Water Company, which draws
water supplies from groundwater sources.27 The Sunny Slope Water Company draws water
25 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30 year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(http:l/www.agmd.gov/hb12008JDecember108123 ] a.htm).
26 U.S. Energy Information Administration, A Look at Principal Building Activities, January 3, 2001
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/cbecslpbawebsite/contents.htm and U.S. Energy Information
Administration, Domestic Electricity Emissions Factors I999-2002.
27 P&D Consultants, Piazza Las Tunas Initial Study, March 2006.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
25 February 10, 2011
ill ■ ■ ■
caNBNLTINCI
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
supplies from two groundwater basins, the Raymond Basin and the San Gabriel Basin.
Additionally, Sunny Slope utilizes five wells, with two pumps in operation for the Raymond
Basin and three pumps for the San Gabriel Basin. The two reservoirs that Sunny Slope uses for
water storage exceed the capacity required to serve the peak -hour demand in the service area
for the water company.28 Emissions from indirect energy impacts due to water supply would
result in 26.58 MTCO2eq/year.
Table 1
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source
CO2
N2O
Cfik
, Total
T omei
Metric
tonslyear
Metric
tonslyear
Metric Toni
of COACI6
Metric
lo for
Metric Toni
of CO2ECIA
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS1
• 2011
63.64
0.00
0.06
0.01
3.90
67.60
• 2012
186.37
0.00
0.10
0.02
7.20
193.67
Total Conslruclion Emissions
249.9
0.00
0.16
0.03
11.10
871.27
Amortized Construction Emissions
8.33
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.37
8.71
OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Direct Emissions
• Area Source2
150.24
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
150.25
• Mobile Source3
4.187.56
0.33
101.94
0.31
6.49
4.295.99
Total Direct Emissions?
4,337.80
0.33
101.95
0.31
6.49
4,446.25
Indirect Emissions
• Electricity Consumptions
786.97
0.01
2.51
0.05
1.04
790.51
• Water Supply'
y
26.48
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.03
26.58
Total Indirect Emissions7
813.44
0.01
2.58
0.05
1.07
817.09
Total Project --Refaced Emissions
WITHOUT Reductions
5,272.05 MTCOzagtyearr
Total Project -Related Emissions
WITH 33.3% Reductions
3,519.53 M7COieq/yearr
Displaced Emissions'
(1,600 seat movie theater)
4,34617
0.34
104.09
0.32
6.63
4,457.48
Net Operational Emissions (MTCO2eq/year)r
- 937.95
Notes;
1. Emissions calculated using CARB's Construchon Equipment Emissions Table and the URBEMIS 2007 computer model.
2. Emissions calculated using URBEMIS 2007 computer model and the SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook,
3. Emissions calculated using URBEMIS 2007 computer model and EMFAC2007. Highest (Most Conservative) Emission Factors for 0n -Road Passenger
Vehicles and Delivery Trucks.
4. Electricity Consumption emissions calculated using demand and emissions faclors from the U.S, Energy Information Administration, Domestic Electricity
Emissions Factors 1999-2002, October 2007, and (he California Energy Commission, Reference Appendices for the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, revised June 2009.
5. Emissions are based on energy usage factors for water conveyance from the California Energy Commission, Wafer Energy Use in California, accessed
December 2010. httpJlwww.energy.ca.govtresearchiiawhndustrylwater.html
6. C01 Equivalent values calculated using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Websde, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator,
hflp:1 w.epa.govicleanenergyfenergy-resourceslcalculatorhtml,accessed January 2011.
7. Totals may be slightly off due 10 rounding
8. Displaced emissions are based on vehicle and area source CO2 emissions from a 1 600 seat movie theater calculated by URBEMI52007.
Refer to Appendix A, Emissions Modeling Data, for detailed model input/output data.
28 Ibid.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 26
February 10, 2011
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
CU P4 ULTINIR
Displaced Emissions
The project site was previously developed with a 1,600 seat movie theater. According to the
Gateway Project Traffic Review, prepared by RBF Consulting (dated January 25, 2011), the
previous uses on the site generated 2,893 daily vehicle trips. The proposed project would
generate a total of 2,681 daily trips, which are 212 fewer daily trips than what was previously
generated on the site. As indicated in Table 1, the 1,600 seat movie theater that previously
occupied the site generated 4,457.48 MTCOzeq/year.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures
The proposed project also includes design features that are consistent with the California Office
of the Attorney General's recommended measures to reduce GHG emissions 29 For example,
the proposed project would promote public transportation and bicycle transportation, include
low flow fixtures (toilets, faucets, etc.), energy -efficient heating and cooling systems, and water -
efficient landscaping measures. A list of the Attorney General's recommended measures and
the project's compliance with each applicable measure are listed in Table 2, Project Consistency
with the Attorney General's Recommendations. The California Attorney General's
recommendations comprehensively outline the various categories of reduction measures and
provide a framework for the GHG analysis. The measures are not necessarily exhaustive, and
are not utilized as thresholds.
Table 2 also identifies GHG emissions reductions associated with the measures that would
implemented by the project. The emissions reductions calculations are based on the CAPCOA
document, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (dated September 2010). This
guidance document primarily focuses on the quantification of project -level mitigation of GHG
emissions associated with land use, transportation, energy use, and other related project areas.
Various strategies also require the implementation of other strategies to be effective. When
these strategies are implemented together, the combination can result in either an enhancement
to the primary strategy by improving its effectiveness or a non -negligible reduction in
effectiveness that would not occur without the combination. Therefore, this is accounted for in
the emissions reduction calculations to avoid double counting. Refer to Appendix A for the
emissions reductions calculations. It should be noted that Table 2 includes the percent
reduction within the emissions source as well as the overall reduction percentage.
29 California Office of the Attorney General, Addressing Climate Change Impacts at the Project Level, updated January
6, 2010.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 27 February 10, 2011
. •
CONBULTIN0
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
Table 2
Project Consistency with the Attorney General's Recommendations
Recommended Measures
Project
Applicability
Emission
SOWN Percent
Rodut n'
Oaattafl
Poised
Railedlen
Energy Efficiency
Incorporate green building practices and
design elements,
The proposed project would comply with the 2010 Califomia
Green Building Code, which became effective on January 1,
2011. The Green Building Code requires a 20 percent
reduction in water usage and a 50 percent reduction of
construction waste. It also requires inspection of energy
systems to ensure the efficiency of heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning (HVAC) units, and other mechanical
equipment.
10 percent
(reduction of
energy usage)
1.5 percent
Meet recognized green building and
energy efficiency benchmarks (e.g.,
Energy Star -qualified buildings, LEED).
Energy efficient fixtures with timers would be used for
outdoor fighting Energy efficient healingkooling systems,
appliances and equipment, and efficient control systems
would be installed In buildings.
Install energy efficient fighting (e.g., light
emitting diodes [LEDs]), heating and
cooling systems, appliances, equipment,
and control systems.
Energy efficient lighting and lighting control systems would
be utilized throughout on -site buildings. LEDs would be
utilized in the outdoor lighting.
2 percent
(reduction of
energy usage)
0.3 percent
Use passive solar design, e.g., orient
buildings and incorporate landscaping to
maximize passive solar heating during
cool seasons, minimize solar heal gain
during hot seasons, and enhance
natural ventilation. Design buildings to
take advantage of sunlight.
Shade, wind, landscaping, and sun screens are planned to
be incorporated Into the project site design, which would
provide shade throughout the site.
Accounted for Above
Install light colored "cool' roofs and cool
pavements.
Cool roofs, pavements, and shade trees would be
incorporated into the project site/building design. High-
albedo roof/pavement materials would be used. Additionally,
the project proposes subterranean parking for more than half
of its spaces, which would provide shade for parking areas
and vehicles.
Accounted for Above
Renewable Energy
Meet 'reach° goals for building energy
efficiency and renewable energy use.
Tankless hot water heaters and energy efficienl
heating/ventilation/air conditioning would be installed.
Additionally, solar/wind power systems are currently being
considered.
Accounted for Above
Install solar, wind, and geothermal
power systems and solar hol water
heaters,
Where solar systems cannot feasibly be
incorporated into the project at the
outset, build 'solar ready" structures.
Water Conservation and Efficiency
Incorporate water -reducing features into
building and landscape design.
The proposed project would install water efficient Fixtures
and appliances and comply with the 2010 California Green
Building Code.
20 percent
(reduction in
indoor water
usage)
0.1 percent
Create water -efficient landscapes.
Water -efficient landscaping measures are addressed in the
site design and would be incorporated into the project. For
example, efficient irrigation systems and devices would be
Installed throughout the project site. A variation of In -pot -
drip" systems would be used. Watering methods would also
be restricted as 10 conserve water and control runoff from the
project site. Furthermore the Covenants, Codes, and
Restrictions (CCRs) would specify that water used for
cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles should be recycled.
19.10 percent
(reduction in
outdoor water
usage)
0.1 percent
Install water -efficient irrigation systems
and devices, such as soil moisture-
based irrigation controls.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
28
February 10, 2011
■ ■ •
CDNIPULTINO
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
Table 2 (Continued)
Project Consistency with the Attorney General's Recommendations
commended Measures
Devise a comprehensive water
conservation strategy appropriate for the
project and location.
Design buildings to be water-efficienI.
Install water -efficient fixtures and
appliances.
Solid Waste Measures
Reuse and recycle construction and
demolition waste (including, but not
limited lo, soil, vegetation, concrete,
lumber, metal, and cardboard).
Integrate reuse and recycling into
residential, industrial. institutional and
commercial projects.
Provide easy and convenient recycling
opportunities for residents, the public,
and tenant businesses.
Land Use Measures
Ensure consistency with 'smart growth'
principles — mixed -use, infill, and higher
density projects that provide alternatives
to individual vehicle travel and promote
the efficient delivery of services and
goods.
Project
Applicability
The proposed project would install water -efficient fixtures
and appliances and would comply with the 2010 California
Green Building Code.
Emission
Source Percent
Reduction
overall Percent
Reduction
Accounted for Above
Construction and demolition waste materials from the project
would be reused and recycled. The California Green Building
Code requires a 50 percent reduction of construction waste.
Interior and exterior storage areas for recydables and green
waste and containers would be provided throughout the
project site.
N/A
NIA
Preserve and create open space and
parks. Preserve existing trees, and plant
replacement trees al a sel ratio.
Protect existing trees and encourage the
planting of new trees. Adopt a tree
protection and replacement ordinance,
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
Include pedestrian and bicycle facilities
within projects and ensure that existing
non -motorized routes are maintained
and enhanced.
Connect parks and open space through
shared pedestrianlbike paths and trails
to encourage walking and bicycling.
Create bicycle lanes and walking paths
directed lo the location of schools, parks
and other destination points.
Promote "least polluting" ways to \
connect people and goods to their
destinations.
Ensure that the project enhances, and
does not disrupt or create barriers to,
non -motorized transportation.
The proposed project is considered to be an infill
development, as the project site is located within an already
developed urban area of the City. The proposed project
consists of a retail and commercial mixed -use development
promoting pedestrian travel and activity.
The proposed project consists of a commerciaVoffice mixed -
use in -fill development. Public transportation exists both
along Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive, Bus
stops are located immediately adjacent to the project site.
The proposed infill project would be built on a previously
developed area and would not remove parkland or trees,
Additionally, the project would include landscaping and trees.
Secure bicycle racks are included in the project design and
would be located near the building entrances. Use of public
transportation is encouraged due lo the project site's
proximity to the Metro and Foothill Transit slops. The project
site is located within a commercial and residential area and
is not located near parks or open space. However, the
location of the project encourages the use of alternative
transit options to connect to the various nearby land uses.
The project consists of an infill development within the City.
The project would be located in proximity to non -motorized
transportation (i.e., trails, bike lanes, and transit) and would
not create barriers to non -motorized transportation.
30.0 percent
(reduction in
VMT)
NIA
8.5 percent
(reduction in
VMT)
24.4 percent
6.9 percent
Accounted for Above
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
29 February 10, 2011
s r ■ ■
CDNGULTINO
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
Table 2 (Continued)
Project Consistency with the Attorney General's Recommendations
Recommended Measures
Project
licability
Emission
SourcePercentApp
OveraII Percent
Enforce and follow limits idling time for
commercial vehicles, including delivery
and construction vehicles.
Construction vehicles are required by CARB to meet the
terms set forth in GARB Regulation for in -use Off Road
Diesel Vehicles, paragraph (d)(3) Idling. All vehicles,
including diesel trucks accessing the project site, would be
subject lo CARB measures and would be required to adhere
to the five-minute limit for vehicle idling.
NIA
Total Reductions
-- 1 33.3
Notes:
1. Emissions reductions calculated in accordance with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association guidance document, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mtigatron Measures. September 2010.
Source Stale of California Department of Justice. Attorney General's Office, Addressing Climate Change at the Project Level, updated January 6, 2010.
Conclusion
As shown in Table 1, operational -related emissions including amortized construction emissions
would be 5,272.05 MTCOaeq/year without reductions from project design features. To quantify
GHG emissions reductions resulting from project operations, the CAPCOA Quantifying
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (September 2010) guidance document was utilized. The
project would incorporate sustainable practices which include water, energy, solid waste, and
transportation efficiency measures that are summarized in Table 2. Based on the reduction
measures in Table 2, the proposed project would reduce its GHG emissions 33.3 percent below
the "business as usual" scenario, and would reduce the project's operational GHG emissions to
3,519.53 MTCO2eq/year. AB 32 requires the reduction of GHG emissions to 1990 levels, which
would require a minimum 28.5 percent reduction in "business as usual" GHG emissions for the
entire State. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the 28.5 percent GHG reduction
goals of AB 32, and a less than significant impact would occur. Furthermore, as described
above, the proposed project would generate fewer GI-IG emissions than the 1,600 seat movie
theater that was previously located on site. As depicted in Table 1, operations of the proposed
project would result in a net reduction of 937.95 MTCO2eq/year.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant impact.
GHG-2 CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, POLICY OR REGULATION
ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE EMISSIONS OF
GREENHOUSE GASES?
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 30 February 10, 2011
is • ■
CONBULTINw
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
The City does not currently have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict
with an adopted plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to GHGs. Also, as described above, the
proposed project would comply with the mandatory measures of the 2010 California Green
Building Code and would include design features to reduce energy and water consumption,
and reduce vehicle trips. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
31 February 10, 2011
■ ■ ■
CONSULTING
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
This page intentionally left blank.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
32 February 10, 2011
f ■ ■
CDNauLTING
6.0 REFERENCES
6.1 LIST OF PREPARERS
RBF CONSULTING
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 92618
949/472-3505
Eddie Torres, Director of Technical Services
Achilles Malisos, Environmental Analyst
Kelly Chiene, Environmental Analyst
Gary Gick, Word Processor
6.2 DOCUMENTS
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
1. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, CEQA and Climate Change
White Paper, January 2008.
2. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association guidance document,
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, September 2010.
3. California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, October
2008.
4. California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990 to2004, 2006.
5. California Office of the Attorney General, The California Environmental Quality Act
Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level, updated May 21, 2008
6. Energy Information Administration, Other Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons,
Perfluorocarbons, and Sulfur Hexafluoride, October 29, 2001,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg0Orp t/other_gases.htrnl.
7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, The Science of
Climate Change — Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of
the IPCC, 1996.
8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis, Summary for PoIicymakers, February 2007.
9. RBF Consulting, The Gateway Project Traffic Review, January 25, 2011.
10. HTH Architects, The Gateway Summary and Conceptual Site Plan, January 27, 2011.
11. P&D Consultants, Piazza Las Tunas Initial Study, March 2006.
12. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 33 February 10, 2011
Ri@II Fr
CONaiULTINCI
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
13. State of California Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office, Addressing
Climate Change at the Project Level, updated January 6, 2010.
14. United States Energy Information Administration, Domestic Electricity Emissions
Factors 1999-2002.
15. United States Energy Information Administration, A Look at Principal Building
Activities, January 3, 2001.
h ttp://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/cbecs/pb awebsite/contents.h tm
16. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Class 1 Ozone Depleting Substances,
March 7, 2006.
17. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004, April 2006,
http://www. ep a.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.htrnl.
18. United States Environmental Protection Agency, High GWP Gases and Climate
Change, June 22, 2010.
19. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Listing of Global Warming Potential for Ozone Depleting Substances, November 7, 2006.
6.3 WEB SITES/PROGRAMS
California Air Resources Board, EMFAC 2007 (version 2.3), November 1, 2006.
California Air Resources Board, www.arb.ca.gov.
Energy Information Administration, www.eia.doe.gov.
Rimpo and Associates, URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4), June 2007.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, www.aqmd.gov.
California Energy Commission, Water Energy Use in California,
www.energy.ca.gov/research/iaw/industry/water.html, modified June 2008.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 34 February 10, 2011
APPENDIX A - EMISSIONS MODELING DATA
Parenthetical URBEMIS2007 Assumptions
For: Temple City Piazza
Date: February 2010
LAND USES
Amount Land Use Type } _ Unit Type Trip Rate
Proposed Uses
60.5
Shopping Center
Thousand Square Feet
41.67'
25.0
General Office Building
Thousand Square Feet
11.01
Displaced Uses2
1,600
Movie Theater _ Seats
1.80
Notes:
1. The trip rate accounts for a 34 percent pass by reduction the PM peak hour, based on RBF Consulting, The Gateway Project Tragic
Review, January 25, 2011.
2. Trip data for displaced uses are based on the Raju Associates, Inc.. Traffic Study for the 9021 Las Tunas Drive Mixed -Use Project,
March 2006.
CONSTRUCTION SOURCES
Year
Duration (months)
Development
2011 - 2012
12
Grading, Trenching, Paving, Building, Architectural Coating
Phase 1 - Site Grading:
Year
Total Acreage
Disturbed
Acreage
Disturbed Dil
Duration
(months)
Fugitive
Dust
Soil Hauling
(cubic yards)
Onsite c1,t il.
(cubic yards per day}
2011
3.6
0.5
1
Low
15,000
666
Mass Grading Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Duration: 2 weeks
Quantity Type
1 Grader
1 Rubber Tired Dozer
1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe
1 Water Truck
Fine Grading Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Duration: 2 weeks
Hours of Daily Operation
6 hours
6 hours
7 hours
8 hours
Quantity Type Hours of Daily Operation
1 Grader 6 hours
1 Rubber Tired Dozer 6 hours
1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 7 hours
1 Water Truck 8 hours
Phase 2 - Trenching:
Duration: 1 month
Trenching Equipment (URBEMIS2007 Default):
Quantity
2
1
Type
Excavators
Other General Industrial Equipment
Phase 3 — Paving
Duration: 1 month
Equipment:
Quantity Type
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers
1 Pavers
1 Rollers
1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe
Phase 4 — Building Construction
Duration: 10 months
Equipment:
Quantity
2
1
1
Type
Forklifts
Cranes
Traclo r/Load er1B a ckhoe
Phase 5 — Architectural Coatings:
Hours of Daily Operation
8 hours
8 hours
Hours of Daily Operation
6 hours
7 hours
7 hours
7 hours
Hours of Daily Operation
6 hours
4 hours
8 hours
Duration — 2 months
Low VOC coatings (Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113)
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Worker Commute
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Construction Mitigation:
Refer to URBEMIS2007 file output.
YEAR 2012 AREA SOURCES
Natural Gas Fuel Combustion:
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Hearth Fuel Combustion:
Off
Landscape Fuel Combustion:
Year of Completion
2012
Summer Days
180
Consumer Products:
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Architectural Coating:
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Area Source Mitigation:
Low VOC coatings (Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113)
Refer to URBEMIS2007 file output.
YEAR 2012 OPERATIONAL SOURCES
Vehicle Fleet %:
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Year:
Year of Completion — 2012
Trip Characteristics:
(URBEMIS2007 Default all phases)
Temperature Data:
40 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit
Variable Starts:
(URBEMIS2007 default all phases)
Road Dust:
Paved — 100%
Unpaved — 0%
Pass By Trips (On/Off):
Off
Double -Counting (On/Off):
Off
Operational Mitigation Measures:
Refer to URBEMIS2007 file output.
Page: 1
2/1/2011 4:45:57 PM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
File Name: H:ICOMM ONIAQ-Noise References\Air QualitylModelinglUrbemis\Pr ojects\Temple City GHG_ existing .urb924
Project Name : Te mple City G ateway Plaza -Displaced Uses
Project Location: South Co ast AQMD
On -Road Vehicle Emissio ns Based o n: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summa ry Re po rt:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
SZ
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 73.51
O PERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
TO TALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 4,710. 46
SUM OF AREA SO URCE AND O PERATIO NAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
Coz
TO TALS (tons/year, u nmitigated) 4,753. 97
Page: 2
2(1/2011 4:45:57 PM
Area So urce Unmitigated Detail Report:
AREA SO URCE EMISSIO N ESTIMATES Annu al T ons Per Year, Unmitigated
Source CO2
Natural G as 73 .00
Hearth
Landscape 0.51
Co nsumer Produ cts
Architectural Coatings
TOTALS (tons/year, unrtlitigated) 73.51
Area Source Chanaes to Defaults
Ope rational Unmitigate d Detail Repo rt:
OPER ATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMA TES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitiga ted
Source
Movie Theater
TOTALS (tons/yea r. un mitigate d)
Operational Settings:
CO 2
4,710.46
4,710,46
Does not include co rre ction for passby trips
Does n ot inc lu de double c ountin g a djus tme nt for inte rnal trips
An alysis Year. 2012 Se aso n: Annual
Emfac : Versio n : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Page: 3
2/112011 4:45:57 PM
Summary of Land Uses
Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate UniI Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT
M ovie Theater 57.86 1000 sq ft 50.00 2,893 .00 25,958.89
2,893.00 25,958 .89
Vehicle Fleet M'
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
Light Auto 51.5 0.6 99.2 0.2
Light Truck < 3750 Ibs 7.3 1,4 95 .9 2.7
Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs 23 .0 0.4 99 .6 0.0
Me d Tru ck 5751-8500 Ibs 10.7 0.9 99.1 0.0
Lite -Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs 1.6 0.0 81,2 18.8
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs 0. 5 0 .0 60 .0 40 .0
Med-Hea vy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs 0. 9 0.0 22 .2 77 .8
Heav y -Heavy Tru ck 33,001-60,000 Ibs 0. 5 0.0 0 .0 100 .0
Other Bus 0.1 0 .0 0 .0 100.0
Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Motorc ycle 2. 8 60.7 39.3 0.0
School Bus 0.1 0.0 0 .0 100 .0
Motor Home 0.9 0.0 88 .9 11.1
Trav el Con ditions
Residential Commerci al
Ho me -Work Home -Shop Ho rne -Other Commute Non -Work Cust omer
Urban Trip Length (miles) 12. 7 7.0 9.5 13. 3 7.4 8.9
Page: 4
2/1/2011 4:45:57 PM
Tra vel Conditi ons
Residential Commercial
Home -Work Hom e -Shop Home -Other C ommute Non -Work Customer
Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14 .9 15.4 9.6 12.6
Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
% of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49,1
% of Trips - Commercial (by lan d use)
M ovie Theater 2 .0
1 .0 97.0
Page: 1
2/1/2011 4:38:15 PM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2 .4
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (T ons/Y ear)
File Name: H:ICOMMONIAQ-Noise ReferenceslAir QualitylModelinglUrbemis1Projects\Temple City GHG_3.urb924
Project Name : Te mple City Gateway Plaza
Pro jec t Loc ation : South Coast AQMD
On -R oad Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2 .3 Nov 1 2006
Off -Ro ad Vehicle Emissio ns Based on: OFFROAD2007
Page: 2
211/2011 4:38:15 PM
Su mma ry Report:
CONSTRUCTIO N EM ISSION ESTIMATES
542
2011 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 70 .15
2011 TO TALS (tons/year mitigated) 70 .15
Percent Reduction 0,00
2012 TO TALS (tons/year unmitigated) 205.44
2012 TOTALS (tons/year mitigate d) 205.44
Percent Reduction 0. 00
AREA SOURCE EM ISSION ESTIM ATES
TOTALS (lonslyear, unmitigated)
OPERATIONAL (V EHICLE) EM ISSIO N ESTIM ATES
TO TALS (Ion s/ye ar, unmitigated)
165.61
4,616.00
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIO NAL EM ISSION ESTIMATES
SQ2
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 4,781.61
Construc tion Unmitigated Detail Report
CO NSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
Page: 3
2/1/2011 4:38:15 PM
CO2
2011 70 .15
M ass Grading 10/01/2011- 17.64
10/15/2011
M ass Grading Dusl 0.00
Mass G rading O ff Road Diesel 11.24
M ass Grading On Ro ad Diesel 5.78
Mass Grading Worker Trips 0. 62
Fine Grading 10/16/2011- 13.04
10/31/2011
Fine Grading Dust 0.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 12. 36
Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0. 00
Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.68
Tre nching 11/01/2011-11/30/2011 20. 23
Trenching Off Road Diesel 18.86
Trenching Worker Trips 1. 37
Building 12/01/2011-10/31/2012 19.24
Building Off Road Diese l 9. 83
Building V endo r Trips 1.93
Building Worker Trips 7.49
Page : 4
211/2011 4:38:15 PM
2012 205.44
Building 12/01/2011-10/31/2012 190 .64
Building Off Roa d Diesel 97.38
Building Vendor Trips 19 .09
Building Worker Trips 74.17
Asphalt 11/01/2012-11/3012012 13.47
Paving O ff -Gas 0.00
Paving O ff Ro ad Die sel 10.77
Pav ing On Road Diesel 0. 30
Paving Worker Trips 2.39
Coating 11/01/2012-12/31/2012 1. 33
Architectural Coaling 0.00
Coa ling Worker Trips 1.33
Phase Assumptions
Phase: Fine Grading 10/16/2011 - 10/31/2011 - De fau lt Fine Site G ra ding/Excavation Descriptio n
To tal Acres Disturbed: 3. 93
M aximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.98
Fugitive Dust Level of De tail: Default
20 tbs per acre -day
On R oad T ruck Trav el (VM T): 0
O ff -Road Equipment:
1 G raders (1 74 hp) operatin g at a 0.61 lo ad facto r for 6 hours per day
1 R ubber Tired Do zers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Lo aders/Backhoe s (108 hp) o perating al a 0.55 Toad factor for 7 hours per da y
1 Water Tru cks (189 hp) operating at a 0. 5 Toad factor for 8 hours per day
Page: 5
2!1//2011 4:38:15 PM
Phase: Mass Grading 10/1/2011 - 10/15/2011 - Default Mass Site Grading/Exca vation Description
To tal Acres Disturbed: 3.93
Maximum Daily Acrea ge Disturbed: 0.98
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail; Low
Onsile Cut/Fill: 666 cubic yards/day; O ffsile Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
On Roa d Truck Travel (VMT): 272. 73
Off Road Equipment
1 Gra ders (174 hp) operating at a 0. 61 Toad factor for 6 hours per d ay
1 Rubber Tired Doze rs (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 lo ad factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors!Loaders/Backhoe s (108 hp) operating at a 0. 55 load factor for 7 h ours p er day
1 Water Truc ks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load facto r fo r 8 hours per day
Phase: Tre nching 11/1/2011 - 11/30/2011 - Default Trenching De scription
Off -Road Equipment
2 Excav ators (168 hp) ope rating at a 0.57 load facto r for 8 hours pe r day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating al a 0.55 Toad factor for 0 hours per day
Phase: Paving 11/1/2012 - 11/30/2012 - De fault Paving Description
Acres to be Pave d: 0.4
Off -Road Equ ipment:
4 Cement and Mo rtar Mixers (10 hp) opera tin g at a 0.56 load factor fo r 6 hours per day
1 Pave rs (100 hp) operating at a 0. 62 lo ad factor for 7 hours pe r clay
1 Rollers (95 hp) ope rating at a 0.56 Toad factor for 7 hours per day
1 Tracto rs/Loaders/Backho es (108 hp) o perating at a 0. 55 load facto r for 7 hours per day
Phase: Building Constru ction 12/1/2011 - 10/31/2012 - Default Building Construction Description
O ff -Road Equipment:
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating al a 0.43 Toad factor for 4 hours per day
Page: 6
2/1/2011 4:38:15 PM
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 Toad factor for 6 hours per day
1 Trac torslLo aderslBac kho es (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load fact or for 8 h ours per day
Phase : Architectural Coating 11/1/2012 - 12/31/2012 - Default Architectur al C oating Description
Rule: Residential Interior Coatin gs begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC 01100
Rule : Residential Interior Co atings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50
Rule: Residential Exterior Co atings be gins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Reside ntial Exterior Coatings be gins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coa tin gs begin s 1/1/2005 ends 1213112040 specifies a VOC of 250
Constructio n M itigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EM ISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Ye ar. Mitigated
Page: 7
2/1/2011 4:38:15 PM
2011 70 .15
M ass Grading 10/01/2011- 17 .64
10/15/2011
Mass Grading Dusl 0.00
M ass Grading Off Road Diesel 11.24
Mass G rading On Road Die sel 5.78
Mass G rading Worker Trips 0.62
Fine Grading 10/16/2011- 13.04
10/31/2011
Fine Grading Dusl 0.00
Fine Grading O ff Road Diesel 12. 36
F in e G radin g On Road Diese l 0.00
Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.68
Trenching 1110112011-11130/2011 20.23
Trenching O ff Road Diesel 18. 86
Trenching Worker Trips 1. 37
Building 1210112011-1013112012 19.24
Building O ff Road Diesel 9.83
Building Vendo r Trips 1.93
Building Worker Trips 7.49
Page : 8
2/1/2011 4:38:15 PM
2012 205.44
Building 12/01/2011-10/3112012 190.64
Buildin g O ff Ro ad Diesel 97.38
Building Vendor Trips 19.09
Building Worker Trips 74.17
Asphalt 11/01/2012-11/30/2012 13.47
Paving Off -Gas 0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel 10.77
Paving On Ro ad Diesel 0. 30
Paving Worker Trips 2. 39
Coaling 1110112012-12131/2012 1. 33
Architectural Coating 0.00
Coating Worker Trips 1.33
Construction Related M itigation Measures
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Gradin g 10/1612011 - 10/31/2011 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Description
Fo r So il Slabliz ing Me asure s, the Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation re duces emissions by:
PM 10: 84% PM25: 84%
For Soil Sta blizing Mea sures, the Replac e groun d c ove r in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM 25: 5%
For Soil Slablizing Measures, the Water e xpo se d surfa ces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM IO: 55% PM 25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing M easures, the Equipme nt loa ding/unloading mitigation reduces e missions by:
PM 10: 69% PM25; 69%
The Following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Gra ding 10/1/2011 - 10/15/2011 - Defau ll Mass Sile Gradin g/Excavation Description
For Soil Slablizing M easures, the A pply so it stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by:
Page: 9
2/1/2011 4:38:15 PM
PM10: B4% PM 25: 84%
Fo r Soil Sla blizin g Mea sures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 5% PM 25: 5%
For Soil Slablizing Me asures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Slablizing M easures, the Equipmen t loading/unlo ading mitigation reduces emissi ons by:
PM 10: 69% PM25: 69%
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIM ATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
Source
N atura l Gas 164.58
Hearth
Landscape 1. 03
Con sumer Pro ducts
Architectural Coatings
TO TALS (Ions/year, unmitigated) 165.61
Area Source Changes to Defaults
Page: 10
2/1/2011 4:38:15 PM
Operational Unmitigated Detail Report
OPERATIONAL EMISSIO N ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
Source CO2
Strip mall 4,105.40
General once building 510.60
TO TALS (lonslyear. unmitigated) 4.616.00
O peration al Settings:
Does not inc lu de c orrec tion for pas sby trips
Does not include double counting adjustme nt for inte rnal trips
Analysis Year: 2011 Season: Annual
Emfac: Version : Emfa c2007 V 2.3 Nov 1 2006
Summa ry OLLandslses
Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type N o. Units Total Trips Total VMT
Strip mall 41.67 1000 sq ft 60 .50 2,521 .03 22,621.25
Gene ral off ice building 11.01 1000 sq ft 25.00 275.25 2,801.36
2,796.28 25,422 .61
Vehicle Fleet Mix
V ehicle Type Percent Type N on -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
Light Auto 51. 6 0. 8 99.0 0.2
Light Truck < 3750 lbs 7. 3 2.7 94.6 2 .7
Light Tru ck 3751-5750 lbs 23. 0 0.4 99. 6 0.0
M ed Tru ck 5751-8500 Ibs 10.6 0.9 99. 1 0.0
Page: 11
21112011 4:38:15 PM
Vehicle Fleet. Mix
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Cat alyst Catalyst Diesel
Lite-He avy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs 1.6 0.0 81.2 18 .8
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs 0.5 0 .0 60.0 40.0
M ed-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs 0.9 0.0 22.2 77 .8
Heavy -Heav y Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs 0 .5 0 .0 0.0 100.0
Other Bus 0.1 0 .0 0 .0 100 .0
Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100 .0
M otorcycle 2 .8 64.3 35 .7 0.0
School Bus 0.1 0.0 0 .0 100.0
M otor Home 0. 9 0.0 88.9 11.1
Travel Conditions
Residential Commercial
Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Oth er Commute Non -Work Customer
Urban Trip Le ngth (miles) 12. 7 7. 0 9.5 13.3 7 .4 8.9
Rural Trip Length (miles) 17. 6 12.1 14.9 15 .4 9.6 12 .6
Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30. 0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
% of Trips - Residential 32. 9 18. 0 49.1
% of Tnps - Commercial (by land use)
Strip mall
General office building
Operational Chances to Defaults
2. 0 1 .0 97.0
35.0 17.5 47 .5
Pa ge: 1
2/1/2011 4:37:27 PM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9 .2 .4
Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
File Name: H :ICOMMONIA Q-Noise ReferenceslAir Qualityl ModelinglUrbemis\ProjectslTemple City GHG_3 .urb924
Project Name: Temple City Gateway Plaza
Pro ject Lo catio n: So uth Co ast AQMD
On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 N ov 1 2006
Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Page: 2
2!112011 4:37:27 PM
Summary Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
2011 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated)
2011 TO TALS Os/day mitigated)
c_92
3,527.61
3,527.61
2012 TO TALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 1,748.98
2012 TOTALS (Ibs/day mitigated) 1,748.98
AR EA SO URCE EMISSION ESTIMA TES
TOTALS (Ibs/da y, unmitigated) 907.42
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
CO2
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 26,118.26
SUM OF AREA SO URCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
TOTALS (Ibs/day, u nmitigated) 27,025.68
Constructio n Unmitigated De tail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIO N ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Page: 3
2/1/2011 4:37:27 PM
Time Slice 10/3/2011-10/14/2011 3 ,527.61
Aclive Days: 10
M ass Grading 10/01/2011- 3,527.61
10/15/2011
M ass Grading Dust 0 .00
Mass Grading Off R oad Diesel 2,247.32
Mass Grading On Road Diesel 1,155.93
Ma ss Grading Worker Trips 124. 37
Time Slice 10/17/2011-10/31/2011 2,371.69
Active Days: 11
Fine Grading 10/16/2011- 2,371. 69
10/31/2011
Fine Grading Dust 0. 00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2,247. 32
Fine Grading On Ro ad Diesel 0.00
Fine Grading Worker Trips 124. 37
Time Slice 11/1/2011-11/30/2011 1,839.01
Active Da ys: 22
Tre nching 11/01/2011-11/30/2011 1,839.01
Trenching O ff Road Diesel 1,714.64
Trenching Wo rker Trips 124.37
Time Slice 12/1/2011-12/30/2011 1,749.10
Active Days: 22
Building 12101/2011-10/31/2012 1,749. 10
Building O ff Road Diesel 893. 39
Building Vendor Trips 175.17
Building Worker Trips 680.54
Page: 4
2/1/2011 4:37:27 PM
Time Slice 1/2/2012-10/31/2012 1 .748.94
Activ e Days: 218
Building 12/01/2011-10/31/2012 1,748.98
Building Off Road Diesel 893.39
Building Vendor Trips 175.18
Building Worker Trips 680.42
Time Slice 11/1/2012-11/30/2012 1,286.31
Active Days: 22
Asphalt 11/0112012-1113012012 1,224.49
Paving Off -G as 0.00
Pa ving Off Road Diesel 979.23
Paving On Road Die sel 27.66
Paving Worker Trips 217.61
Coating 11/01/2012-12/31/2012 61.81
Architec tural Coa ting 0.00
Coating Worke r Trips 61.81
Time Slice 12/3/2012-12/31/2012 61.81
Ac tive Days: 21
Coaling 11/01/2012-12/31/2012 61.81
Arc hite ctura l Coa lin g 0.00
Coa ling Worker Trips 61. 81
Phase Assu mp tions
Phase : Fine Grading 10/16/2011 - 10/31/2011 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Descriptio n
Total Acres Disturbed: 3.93
M aximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0. 98
Fugitive Dust Le vel of D etail: Default
Page: 5
2/1/2011 4:37:27 PM
20 Ibs per acre -day
On Roa d Tru ck Travel (VMT): 0
O ff -Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) o perating al a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Do zers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tracto rsiLoaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Wate r Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 h ours per day
Phase: Mass Grading 10/1/2011 - 10/15/2011 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation D escription
Total Acres Disturbed: 3. 93
Ma ximum Daily Acre age Disturbed: 0. 98
Fugitive Dust Le vel of Detail; Low
Onsite Cul/Fill: 666 cubic yards/day; O ffsile Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
On Roa d Truck Tra ve l (V MT): 272.73
Off -Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) ope rating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 TractorslLoa ders/Ba ckhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 Toad factor fo r 8 hou rs per day
Phase: Trenching 11/1/2011 - 11/30/2011 - De fau lt Trenching Description
Off -R oad Equ ipment:
2 Exc avators (168 hp) ope rating at a 0.57 load fac tor for 8 hou rs per day
1 O ther General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) ope rating at a 0.51 load facto r for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loa derslBackhoes (108 hp) opera ting at a 0.55 load facto r for 0 hours per day
Phase: Paving 11/1/2012 - 11/30/2012 - De fault Paving Description
Ac res to be Pave d: 0. 4
Off -Road Equipment:
4 Cement and M ortar Mixers (10 hp) operating al a 0.56 lo ad facto r fo r 6 hours pe r day
Page : 6
2/112011 4:37:27 PM
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load fact or for 7 h ours per clay
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backho es (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 ho ur s per d ay
Pha se: Building Co nstructio n 12/112011 - 10131/2012 - Default Building Constr uction Descriplion
O ff -Road Equipmen t:
1 C rane s (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 Toad factor for 4 hours per day
2 Fo rklifts (145 hp) o pera tin g at a 0. 3 Toad factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/LoadersfBackhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load fact or for B hours per day
Pha se: Architectural Coating 11/1/2012 - 12/31/2012 - De fault Architectural Coating Description
Ru le: Residential In te rior Coa tings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100
Rule: Residential interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a V OC of 50
Rule: Residential Exte rior Co atings begins 1/112005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: R esidential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100
Rule: Nonresidential Interio r Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresiden tia l Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
cOz
Page: 7
211/2011 4:37:27 PM
Time Slice 101312011-10/1412011 3.527.61
Active Da ys: 10
Ma ss G rading 10/01/2011- 3,527.61
10/15/2011
M ass Grading Dust 0.00
Mass Grading O ff Road Diesel 2,247.32
Mass Grading On Ro ad Diesel 1.155.93
M ass Grading Worker Trips 124.37
Time Slice 1011712011-1013112011 2,371.69
Active Days: 11
Fine Grading 10/16/2011- 2,371. 69
10!3112011
Fine Grading Oust 0. 00
Fine Grading Off Ro ad Diesel 2,247.32
Fine Grading On Ro ad Diesel 0.00
Fine Grading Worker Trips 124. 37
Time Slice 11/1/2011-11/30/2011 1.839.01
Active Days: 22
Trenching 11/01/2011-11/30/2011 1.839. 01
Trenching Off R oad Diesel 1,714. 64
Trenching Worker Trips 124.37
Time Slice 1211/2011-1213012011 1,749. 10
Active Days: 22
Building 1210112011-1013112012 1,749.10
Building Off Road Die sel 893.39
Building V endor Trips 175.17
Building Wo rke r ' Trips 680.54
Page : 8
2!1/2011 4:37:27 PM
Time Slice 1/212012-1013112012 1.748.98
A ctive Days: 218
Building 12ID1/2011-10/31/2012 1,748.98
Building Off Road Diesel 893.39
Building Vendo r Trips 175.18
Building Wo rke r Tnps 680.42
Time Slice 11/1/2012-11/30/2012 1,286.31
Active Days- 22
A sphalt 11/01/2012-11/30/2012 1,224. 49
Paving Off -Gas 0.00
Paving Off Ro ad Diesel 979.23
Paving On Road Diesel 27. 66
Paving Wo rke r T rips 217.61
Co ating 11/01/2012-12/31/2012 61.81
Architectural Coating 0.00
Co aling Wo rke r Trips 61.81
Time Slice 12/3/2012-12/31/2012 61.81
Active Days: 21
Coating 11/01/2012-12/31/2012 61.81
Architec tura l C oa ting 0. 00
Coating Wo rke r Trips 61.81
Construction Related Mitigation M easures
The following mitiga tion mea sure s apply to Phase: Fine G rading 10/16/2011 - 10/31/2011 - De fault Fine Site Grading/Excava tion Description
For Soil Slablizing Me asure s, the Apply so il sta bilizers to inactive areas mitiga tio n re duces emissions by:
PM10: 84% PM25: 84%
For Sod Slablizing Me asures, the Replace ground co ver in disturbed areas quickly mitiga tion reduces emissio ns by:
Page: 9
2!1!2011 4:37:27 PM
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation r educes emissions by:
PM10: 55% PM 25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measu res, the Equipment loading/unlo adi ng mitigation reduc es emissi ons by:
PM 10: 69% PM25: 69%
The following mitigation measu res apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/1/2011 - 10/15/2011 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description
Fo r Soil Stablizing Measures, the Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissi ons by:
PM 10: 84% PM25: 84%
For Soil Stablizing Me asu res, the Replace ground cover in disturbed are as quickly mitigation reduces emissio ns by:
PM 10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water expo sed surface s 2x daily watering mitigation reduc es emissi ons by:
PM10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipmen t loadin g/unloa ding mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM 10: 69% PM 25: 69%
Are a Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSIO N ESTIMATES Summer Poun ds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source Q42
Natural Gas
Hearth
Landscape
Consu mer Products
Arc hitectural C oa tings
TOTALS• (lbslday. unmitigated)
901.80
5.62
907,42
Area Source Chanaes to Defaults
Page: 10
21112011 4:37:27 PM
Ope rational Unmitigated Detail Report:
O PERATIONAL EM ISSION ESTIMATES Summer P ounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source CO2
Strip ma lt 23,229 .53
General office building 2,888.73
TO TALS (Ibslday, unmitiga ted) 26,118.26
Ope rational Settings:
Doe s not include correction fo r passby trips
Does not include do uble co unting adjustme nt fo r internal trips
Analysis Year: 2011 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Summary of Land Uses
Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. U nits Total Trips Total VMT
Strip mall 41. 67 1000 sq ft 60.50 2,521.03 22,621 .25
General o ffice building 11. 01 1000 sq ft 25.00 275.25 2,801 .36
2,796.28 25,422.61
Vebjyle FleelMix
Ve hicle Type Pe rce nt Type No n -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
Light Auto 51. 6 0.8 99.0 0.2
Light Truck < 3750 Ibs 7.3 2.7 94.6 2.7
Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs 23.0 0.4 99.6 0.0
M ed Truck 5751-8500 tbs 10.6 0.9 99.1 0.0
Page: 11
211/2011 4:37:27 PM
Vehicle Feet MiX
Vehic le Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 ibs 1.6 0.0 81.2 18 .8
Lite-He avy Truck 10,001-14,000 ibs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0
M ed-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8
Hea vy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 fibs 0.5 0.0 0 .0 100.0
Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0 .0 100.0
Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0 .0 100.0
M otorcycle 2.8 64.3 35.7 0 .0
School Bus 0.1 0 .0 0,0 100.0
Mo tor Home 0.9 0.0 88.9 11.1
Travel Conditions
Residential Commercial
Ho me -Wo rk Home -Shop Home -Other Comm ut e Non -W ork Customer
Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7. 0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9
Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12. 1 14. 9 15.4 9.6 12 .6
Trip spee ds (mph) 30. 0 30.0 30. 0 30 .0 30.0 30,0
% of Trips - Residential 32. 9 18.0 49.1
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
Strip mall
G eneral office building
Operational Chances to Defaults
2. 0 1.0 97 .0
35. 0 17.5 47 .5
Page : 1
2/112011 4:37:57 PM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2 .4
Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
File Name: H:ICOMM ONIAQ-Noise Ref erenceslAir QualitylModelinglUrbemis\Proj ects\Temple City GHG_3 .urb924
Proje ct Name : Te mple City G ateway Plaza
Proje ct Lo ca tio n: So uth Coast AQMD
On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Ba sed on : O FFROAD2007
Page: 2
2/1/2011 4:37:57 PM
Summary Report:
CO NSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
2011 TO TALS (Ibslday unmitigated)
2011 TOTALS (Ibslday mitigated)
2012 TOTALS (Ibslday unmitigated)
2012 TO TALS (Ibslday mitigated)
AREA SOURCE EM ISSION ESTIMATES
TOTALS (Ibslday, unmitigated)
O PERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
TO TALS (Ibslday, unmitigated)
QQZ
3,527.61
3,527.61
1,748.98
1,748.98
901. 80
CO2
23,642. 90
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONA L EMISSION ESTIMATES
TOTALS (Ibslday, unmitigated) 24,544.70
Con struc tion Unmitiga ted Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIO N ESTIMA TES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Page : 3
2/1/2011 4:37:57 PM
Time Slice 1013/2011-1011412011 3.527.61
Active Days: 10
M ass Grading 1010112011- 3,527.61
10/15/2011
Mass Grading Dust 0 .00
M ass Grading O ff Road Diesel 2,247.32
Mass Grading On Road Diesel 1,155.93
Mass Grading Worker Trips 124.37
Time Slice 10117/2011-10/31/2011 2,371.69
Active Days: 11
Fine G rading 10/16/2011- 2,371.69
10/31/2011
Fine Grading Dust 0. 00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2,247. 32
F ine Grading On Road Die sel 0. 00
Fine Grading Worker Trips 124.37
Time Slice 11/1/2011-11/30/2011 1,839.01
Activ e Days: 22
Trenching 11/01/2011-11/3012011 1,839.01
Trenching Off Road Diesel 1,714. 64
Trenching Worker Trips 124.37
Time Slice 12/1/2011-12/30/2011 1, 749.10
Active Days: 22
Building 12/01/2011-10/31/2012 1,749.10
Bu ilding Off R oad Diesel 893. 39
Building V endor Trips 175.17
Building Worke r Trips 680.54
Page: 4
21112011 4:37:57 PM
Time Slice 11212012-10/31/2012 1,748.98
Active Days• 218
Building 12/01/2011-10131/2012 1,748 .98
Building Off Road Diesel 893 .39
Building Vendo r Trips 175.18
Bu ilding Worke r Trips 680.42
Time Slice 111112012-11130/2012 1,286.31
Active Days: 22
Asphalt 11/01/2012-11/30/2012 1.224.49
Paving O ff -G as 0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel 979. 23
Paving On Road Diesel 27.66
Pa ving Worker Trips 217.61
Coating 11/0112012-1213112012 61. 81
Architectural Coaling 0.00
Coaling Worker Trips 61.81
Time Slice 121312012-1213112012 61. 81
Ac tive Days: 21
Coating 11/01/2012-12/31/2012 61.81
A rc hite ctural Coaling 0.00
Co ating Worker Trips 61.81
phase Assumptions
Pha se: F ine Grading 10116/2011 - 10/31/2011 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Description
Total Acres Disturbed: 3. 93
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.98
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default
Page: 5
2/1/2011 4:37:57 PM
20 Ibs per acre -day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0
O ff -Road Equipment:
1 G raders (174 hp) o pe rating at a 0.61 Toad factor for 6 hours p er day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loade rs /Ba ckhoes (106 hp) operating al a 0.55 load factor for 7 h ours p er day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0. 5 load factor for 8 hour s p er d ay
Phase: Mass Grading 10/1/2011 - 10/15/2011 - Default Mass Site Grading/E xcav ati on Description
Total Acres Disturbed: 3. 93
Maximum Da ily Ac reage Disturbed: 0. 98
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Onsile Cut/Fill: 666 cubic yards/day; Offslle Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
On Ro ad Truck Travel (V MT): 272.73
Off -Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) o pe ra tin g at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating al a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loade rs/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 lo ad Factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 loa d factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Trenc hin g 11/1/2011 - 11/30/2011 - Default Trenching Description
Off -Road Equipme nt:
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0. 57 loa d factor fo r 8 ho urs per day
1 Other General Industria l Equipment (238 hp) operating al a 0.51 To ad factor for 8 hours pe r day
1 Tractors/Loa ders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 Toad factor fo r 0 ho urs per day
Pha se: Paving 11/1/2012 - 11/30/2012 - Default Paving Description
Acres to be Paved: 0.4
Off -Roa d Equipment:
4 Cement and Mo rtar Mixers (10 hp) o pe rating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 ho urs pe r day
Page: 6
2/112011 4:37:57 PM
1 Pavers (100 hp) opera ting at a 0.62 load fact or f or 7 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hp) o pe rating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 TractorslLoadersBackhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0 .55 load factor for 7 hours p er day
Phase : Building Construction 12/1/2011 - 10/31/2012 - Default Building Construclion Description
Off -Road Equipmen t:
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 lo ad factor fo r 4 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating al a 0. 3 load facto r for 6 hours per day
1 Trac!orslLoa ders/Ba ckhoess (108 hp) operating al a 0. 55 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Architec tural Co ating 11/1/2012 - 12/31/2012 - De fau lt Architectural C oating Description
Rule: Residen tial Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 en ds 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 en ds 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50
Rule: Residen tial Exterior Coa tings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Co atings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatin gs begin s 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
R ule: Nonreside ntial Exterior C oatings begins 1/1/2005 en ds 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Constru ction Mitigated De tail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
Page: 7
2/1/2011 4:37:57 PM
T ime Slice 10/3/2011-10/14/2011 3.527.61
Active Days. 10
Mass Grading 10/01/2011- 3,527.61
10/15/2011
M ass G rading Dust 0 .00
Mass Grading Off Ro ad Diesel 2,247.32
Mass Grading On Road Diesel 1,155.93
Mass Grading Worker Trips 124. 37
Time Slice 10/17/2011-10/31/2011 2, 371. 69
Active Days: 11
Fine Grading 10/16/2011- 2,371.69
10/31/2011
Fine Grading Dust 0. 00
Fine Grading Off R oad Diesel 2,247.32
Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00
Fine Grading Worker Trips 124.37
lime Slice 11/1/2011-11/30/2011 1.839. 01
Active Days: 22
Trenching 11/01/2011-11/30/2011 1,839.01
Trenching Off Road Diesel 1,714. 64
Trenching Worker Trips 124.37
Time Slice 12/1/2011-12/30/2011 1,749.10
Active Days! 22
Building 12/01/2011-10/31/2012 1,749.10
Bu ildin g Off Ro ad Diesel 893.39
Building Vendo r Trips 175.17
Building Worker Trips 680.54
Page: 8
211/2011 4:37:57 PM
Time Slice 11212012-1013112012 1.748.98
Active Days: 218
Building 12/0112011-1013112012 1,748 .98
Building Off Road Diesel 893.39
Building Vendor Trips 175.18
Building Worker Trips 680.42
Time Slice 111112012-11/3012012 1,286. 31
Active Days: 22
Asphalt 1110112012-1113012012 1,224.49
Paving Off -Gas 0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel 979. 23
Paving On R oad Diesel 27. 66
Paving Worker Trips 217.61
Co ating 1110112012-12/3112012 61.81
Architectural Coa tin g 0.00
Coating Worke r Trips 61.81
Time Slice 121312012-1213112012 61.81
Activ e Days: 21
Coaling 11/01/2012-12/31/2012 61.81
Architectural Coating 0.00
Co ating Worker Trips 61. 81
Constructio n Relate d Mitigation Measure s
The following mitiga tion mea sure s a pply to Phas e: Fin e G rading 10/16/2011 - 10/31/2011 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavalion Description
For Soil Stablizing M easures, the Apply so il stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissio ns by:
PM10:84" PM25:84"
For Soil Stablizing Mea sures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissio ns by:
Page: 9
2/112011 4:37:57 PM
PM10: 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Slablizing M easures, the Water exp osed surfac es 2x daily wateri ng mitigation reduces emissi ons by:
PM10: 55% PM 25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing M ea sures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissi ons by:
PM 10: 69% PM 25: 69%
The fo llowing mitigatio n measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/1/2011 - 10/15/2011 - Default Mass Site Grading/Exca vation Descripti on
For Soil Stablizing M ea sures, the Apply soil stabilizers to inacti ve ar eas mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM 10: 64% PM25: 64%
For Soil Stablizing M easures, the R eplace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM 10: 5% PM25: 5%
For So il Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM 10: 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Slablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 69% PM 25: 69%
Area Source Unmitigate d Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSIO N ESTIM ATES Winter Po unds Pe r Day, Unmitigate d
Sourcg Z
Natural Gas
Hearth
Landscaping - No Winter Emissions
Consumer Products
Architectu ral Coatings
TOTALS Ohs/da y, unmitigated)
901.60
901.80
Area Source Chances to Defaults
Page: 10
21112011 4:37:57 PM
Ope ra tio nal Unmitigated Detail Report:
OPERATIONAL EM ISSIO N ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source CO2
Strip mall 21,026.93
General office building 2,615.97
TOTALS (Ibs/day. u nmitiga te d) 23.642, 90
Operatio nal Settings:
Does not inc lude correc tion for passby trips
Do es n ot inclu de double co unting adjustment fo r internal trips
Analys is Year: 2011 Te mperatu re (F): 60 Season : Winter
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2. 3 Nov 1 2006
Summary of Land Uses
Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT
41.67 1000 sq ft 60.50 2,521.03 22,621.25
Strip mall
General o ffice bu ilding 11. 01 1000 sq fl 25.00 275.25 2.801 .36
2,796 .28 25,422 .61
Ve hicle Fleet MiX
Vehicle Type
Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Di esel
Light Auto
51. 6 0.8 99.0 0 .2
Light Truck a 3750 Ibs
7.3 2. 7 94.6 2.7
Light Truck 3751-5750 !bs
23.0 0.4 99.6 0.0
Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs
10.6 0. 9 99.1 0.0
Page: 11
2/112011 4:37:57 PM
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Vehicle Type Perce nt Type N on - Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs 1 6 0.0 81 .2 18.8
Lite-Heavy Truck 10, 001-14.000 Ibs 0 .5 0.0 60 .0 40 .0
Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs 0.9 0 .0 22.2 77.8
Heavy -He avy Tru ck 33,001-60,000 Ibs 0.5 0 .0 0.0 100 .0
Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
M otorcycle 2.8 64.3 35.7 0 .0
School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mo to r Ho me 0.9 0.0 88 .9 11 .1
Travel Conditions
Residential Commercial
Horne -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute N on -Work Customer
Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7. 0 9.5 13 .3 7 .4 8 .9
Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15 .4 9.6 12 .6
Trip speeds (mph) 30. 0 30. 0 30. 0 30.0 30.0 30.0
% of Trips - Residentia l 32.9 18. 0 49.1
% of Trips - Co mmerc ial (by land use)
Strip mall
General office building
O perational Chances lo Defaults
2.0 1 .0 97.0
35.0 17.5 47.5
Construction Emissions
2011
(Mass Goading
Graders
Rubber Tired Dozers
TractorslLoaclersB a cknoes
O0 -Highway Trucks
Duration (days): 15
Equipment
Fins Grading
Graders
Rubber Tired Dozers
Tractors/Loaders/Backbone
0N•Highway Trucks
Emisslon Factors
CO, _ CH. N,0
132.7
239.1
66.6
0,0155
0.0305
0.0092
0.0035
0.0062
0.0017
280.1 , 0.0224 , 0.0007 _
UuraUon (days): 15
Equipment
Emission Factors
CO,
132 7
239.1
66.8
260.1
Trenching
Duration (daysL 22
Equipment
Excavators
Oyler General Indusinal Equipment
building
CH,
14,0
Hoursiday
6
6
7
6
Hours/day
Emissions (poundsllrour)
Ousntttyl c01
0.0155
6.0305 0.0062
0.0092 0 0017
0.0224 0.0067
0.0035
Em1361011 Factors
CO,
119.6
152.2
Duration {days). 22
Equipment
TraclonskoaderslBadkhoes
Cranes
Forklifts
CH,
0,0134
0.0165
Emission Factors
CO,
66.6
1287
54 4
Tail Construction Emus • Yesr 2014
pureion (daysL 220
Eg nt
TraotorSlLoaderalBadkhoes
Cranes
Forklifts
Paving
CH,
0.0092
0.0144
0.0062
5410
0.0031
0 004
Emission Factors
Co, CH.
66.8
128 7
54.4 _
Duration (days 22
Equipment
Cement and Mortar Mixers
Pavers
Tr a cto Sal L oa dersBe cis hoes
Ro5flf5
5.
Emission Factors
CO,
7.2
77.9
66
67 1 l 0.0105 0 0018
0.0092
0.0144
0.0062
N,O
0.0017
0.0033
0.0014
N,O
0.0017
0 0033
6.0014
6
1 1 132,7
1 ` 239.1
1 1 66.6
Quantity
1
1
CH.
0.0155
0.0305_
0.0092
up
0.0035
0.0062
0.0017
260.1 0.0224 0.0067
Emissions sr)
co,
5,9715
10.7595
35070
15.8060
Tabs Emissions 35.6440
Emissions (pounds/now)
c0,
1 132.7
239.1
7 I 66.8
8 If 260.1
HoursIday Quantity
8
2
Ilourslday Quantity
8 1
4 1
CH, N20
0.0009 _ 0.0002
0.016 0.002 _
fi 2
CH, N,O
0.0165 0.0035
0.0305 0.0062
0.0092 0.0017
0.0224 0.0087
Total Emissions
Emissions (pounds/hour)
co, CH. L up
2392
1522
0.0268
0.0166
0 0062
0.0040
Total Emissions
Emissions (pounds/hour)
108.8 0.0124 0.0026
7.1808
Tote Emissions
0.0014 0.0003
0.0005 0.0001
0.0013 0.0004
0.0039 0.0009
Endaawm Monair.r)
Co,
5.9715
10.7595
3.5078
15.6060
35.8440
CH,
0.0007
0.0014
0.0005
0.0013
0.0039
Emissions
21.0496
13.3938
34.4432 0.0038 1 0, 0009
CH. I
N.0
0.0002
0.0003
0.0001
0.0004
0 0009
0.0024 1 0.0005
0.0015 ) 0.0004
Emissions (. sr)
5.6626
16.7220
CH. NO
0.0008 0.0001
0.0006 0.0001
0.0008 0.0002
0.0023 0.0005
Hours/day Quantity
8 1
4 1
6 2
- 0.0092 0.0017
7MOICollitrUctitan EmMflolla •Yarr2013
Houraldey
6
7
7
7
tons/year
metric tons/you
metric Sores CO.eglyear
Emissions (parardaNtwtr)
CO, I CH, 0,01 CO,
66.9 0.0092 0,0017 58.7540
126.7 0.0144 0.0033 56.8250
108.6 0.0124 0.0028 71.8080
124.651
113.26
11326
0.611
0.01
3.90
0.00
0.06
0.66
Emissions ltaraNyssr)
Total Emfssbns 1072200
CH, I N,0
_ 0.0081 I 0.0015 =
0.0083 II 0.0015
0.0082 0.0018
0,0226 1 0.0045
Emissions 4
pourudalltanr)
0.0008 1.9008
0.0020 6.9983
0.0017 3.1436
o.o9+e 5.1667
Emissions [
i
Quantity) co,
fates
Construction Equipment Em Salem: hsvn Ferias Sa : Provided by SCAM].
Refer to lira IIRIFJr119 2007 essurnptions and model output lot construction equmrwd essunrytnru
4 1 28 8
1 1 77.9
1 1 66.8
67.1
CH,
9.01036
0.0160
0.0092 _
0.0108
Total Emissions 18.2094
up Co,
h
CH. MnO
_ 0.0002 0.0001 _
0.0012 0.0002
0.0007 1 0.0001
0.0006 I 0.0001
0.0030 ` 0,0005 1
l tonsyaer
I.
metric tonayear
metk tons CO, eµysar
i
205.43
186.38
16636
0.03
0.02
7 20
0.01
0.00
010
0.0007 ( ear)
CH, N,0
0.0002
Emissions From Natural Gas Consumed By Land Uses
Lend Us*
Amount
cubic feet p r
iseliraquens I4.lUaratobser per
month
agasiretataileaftlespetessison cubic feet)
CO -
1,20E _
2.E419
CH.
2.34E-09
Residential
Single Family Units
6665
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Family Units
4011.5
0.00
0.00
0.00
NonResidential
_
Indutsrial
30
0.00
0.00
0.00
HotettMate!
75
0.00
0.00
0.00
Retail/Shopping Center
60500
45.2
10.94
0.00
0.00
Office
14,500
35.7
2.07
0.00
0.00
Blank
35
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL - pounds per day
--
-
13.01
0.00
0.00
TOTAL - tons per year
-
-
_ 2.3741
0.0000
0.0000
-
TOTAL • metric tons per year
-
-
2.35E+00
_3.05E-05
4.13E-05
CO2
N20
CH4
metric tons per year
2.15
0.00
0.00
metric tons CO2eq per year
2.15
0.01
0.00
war.
1. Usage rata based on factors from the Energy Infomiabon Adnwaabalim Ihlfe, lwww.ei..doe.pbvle W kbeasreportehtrn1)
2. Conversion from meblc lens per year to metric tons of CO=aq per year la based upon the EPA Greenhouse Gas Fquivalerrdee Cu MIc ;
htipJAvwoc epe egoutGeermerpyltrsargy-nauurc esicabutator.htm!
Source;
South Coast Air Quality Management Gfsirirnt, CEOA Ar Quafay Handbook. November 1093, Table AO -12.
Emissions From Electricity Consumed By Land Uses
Power Ulltiry
Southern CaIHornia Edison (SCE)
)
Land Use
kilowatt•hoasna
Amount per yearf
Residential (Dwelling Units)
Food Store SF)
Restaurant (SF)
Hospitals (SF)
Retait (SF)
College/University (SF)
High School (SF)
Elementary School (SF)
Office (SF)
Hotel/Motel (SF)
Warehouse (SF)
Miscetlaneous (SF)
Btank
x,:000
1 1,000
CO2
0.641
CH,f
6,59E-06. 4.01E-05
526.5 0.00
53.3 3,276.12
38 695.44
26.5 0.00
11:8 300.48
8.4 0.00
154 0.00
8 0.00
18.9
995
425 0.00
10.5 0.00
4,509.
0.00 ■ 0.00
0.03 0.21
0.01 0.04
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
4.500
481.28
0.00
TOTAL - pounds per day
TOTAL - tons per year
TOTAL - metric tons per year
metric tons per year
0.00
k753.32
567.48
6.3
0.01.
0.01
0.05
0.05
f.�
COQ
786.97
786.97
0.0081
CHe,
0.0496
metric tons CO=eq per year
2.51
1.04
740.51
Notes:
1. Usage rate based on fedora from the Energy Information Admtrristrabon(hllpllwww•eta.daa.povlemeulrberar epats.hirn)
2. Conversion from metric lone per year to memo tons of CO eq per year is based upon the EPA Greenhouse Ges Equivalencies Calculator,
httpJMww.epa.govltleanenerpylenergy-resaurceslralorktor.Mml
Source for greenhouse gas emismons rotes;
U.S. Energy Information AMinlsrration, Domestic Eledridry Emissions Ficfors 1999.2002, October 2007. hapllwww.eie.doe.Wvlotell1ti05necharaisUrtml
Cantor me Air Pollution Control Officers Association, 0uenfrfj ing Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures . September 2010 and Caldanma Ammon Registry
(CCAR) Database. PBwer/11a0fy Protocol (PUP) Ripon. 2006.
Electricty Reduction Calculations
Measure Percent Reduction
2.1.2 Programmable Thermostat Tir 6.0%
2.1.4 Energy Star Appliances 4.0%
2.2.2 Lighting 2.0°6
rolal 12.0%
Total Unmitigated Emissions
Mitigated Emissions
MTCOxeq
790.51
695.65
Water Consumption - indirect Emissions
Water Demand (MG1yea►):
17
Percent Local:
100%
Percent Import:
0%
Percent Indoor
70%
Percent Oudoor
30%
Energy Intensity of Water
Use (kWh/MG):
Local Source:
mport Source:
75,612
Los Angetes4 groundwater
SWP to LA Basin surface water
Wrier Ilse Energy Factors (kWh1MG
Source
Supply and Conveyance
Treatment
Distribution
Outdoor Total
Wast""ater
Treatment
Indoor Total
Local
1,780
111
1,272
3,163
1.911
5.074
Import
0
0
0
0
0
0
Measure
4.2.1
4.2.3
4.2.4
Emissions:
CO2
N20
CH,
MidNITCO2eq
Ibslyear
58,372.28
0.50
3.05
MTlyear
26.48
0.00
0.00
MTCO2eq/year
26.48
0.07
0.03
26.58
Abbreviations:
kWh . kilowatt hour
MG • matron gallons
SWP v Slate Water Project
WD • water district
Sources:
California Air Pollution Control Mors Association. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Afilipoiee Measures, September 2010.
CEC. 2006. Rerwung Estimates of Weir -Reeled Energy Use n California PIER Final Report Prepared by Npvigan'. Consulting, Inc. GEC -500-2006-118. December.
Available at h11p'1lwwnv,erMrgy.rat.govt2006putilirationslCEC-500-2006-118FCEC.500.2096-118 PDF
CEC, 2005. C& tfomia's Water -Energy sebumship. Final Staff Report. CEC 700.2005 -011 -SF. Available ordure at htpJhwrw.energy,rat.gov2005publications/CEC-700.2005-
01110EC-700.2005-011-SF. PDF
NRDC. 2004. Energy Down the Drain: The hidden Costa of California's Water Supply. Prepared by NRDC end Me Pudic Inetltage, Avaltable mane ac
nttp7/www.nrdc argw terlrnnserve60Nedruntedrain.pdf
Install Low -Flow Water Fixtures
Water Efficient Landscapes
Water Efficient Irrigation Sysler
Total Indoor Reduction
Total Outdoor Reduction
Total Water Reduction Overall
Total Unmitigated Emissions
Mitigated Emissions
Water Reduction Calculations
Percent Reduction
20.0%
13.0%
6.1%
20.09
19.1%
19.7%
MTCO5eq
26.55
21.33
(indoor only)
(outdoor only)
(outdoor only)
Existing Mobile Source Emissions Calculations
Existing VMT:
Year.
25,959
2012
_
Tel
Breakdown
al
Emission Factor
I Emis Passe'ai Emis Delh
Passnger Delivery
Total Emissions
VMT
Oasdlna
Diesel
Passnger
Delivery
poundslday _
tonslyear
tonslyear
metric tonsfyear
CO
25.959
24.661
1298
0,0077
0.0155
188.77
20.06
34.45
3.66
36.11
34 58
NOK
25.959
24,661
1,298
0.0008
0.0173
19.13
22.49
3.49
4.10
7.60
6.89
N2Or
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
N/A
N/A
NIA
NIA
0.37
0.34
ROG
50x 25,959
25,959
24,661
1,298
0.0008
0.0022
19.64
2.90
3 58
0.53
4.11
3.73
24,661'
1,298
0.0000
0.0000
0.26
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.05
PM,,,
PM2s
25,959
24,661
1.298
0.0001
0.0006
2.21
0 84
0.40
0.15
0 56
0.51
25,959
24,661
1,298
0.0001
0.0005
1.42v
0 71
0.26
0.13
0,39
0 35
Clio
25,959
24,661
1,298
0.0001
0.0001
1.77
0.14
0.32
0.03
0.35
9.32
CO2
25.959
24,661
1 298
1.1015
2 7663
27.164 66
3,590.48
4,957.55
655.26_ 5,612,81
5091 861
CO,
to
CFI,
metric tons per year
5,091.86
0 34
4.32
Total
i1111CG1aq
metric ions COreq per year
5.091.86
104,09
6.63
5,202.57
Noses:
1, VMT based upon URBEMIS 2007 model output.
2. Emission Fedor based upon EMFAC 2007 (.valor 2,3), HOW Most Consemnve) &reason Feelers to On -Road Passenger Vehicles end Delivery trucks
3, Breakdown d 95% pecans and 5%dMwl bahldea 6 based on the heel mar for the project.
.1 Emission Fedor to M,O beset upon a conversion ratio of 0.04073 horn NOx to NaO. Based upon Cellfomle /Jr Resources Board: Estonotes d Nitrous Oxide
Emis .ons tom Motor Vehicles end the Effects d Gates st Composition and Aging, 2005.
5. Converser ham meek tots per year to metric Ions a CO2eq per year is based upon the EPA Greenhouse Gas Equlvalendea Caladetor,
ettpliwww. spa povidaanene+vyienerpytesourweldadabr h4m1
Mobile Source Emissions Calculations
Project VMT:
Year
25,423
2012
Total '
Breakdown of
Emission Factor
1 Emis Pa5saal Emile Delft
Passngar1 Delivery
Total Emissions
VMT
emends
Diesel
Passnger
Delivery
poundslday
tonsfyoar
tonstyear
metric tons/year
25,423
24,151
1,271
0.0077
0.0155
184 87
19.65
33.74
3.59
37.33
33.86
_CO
NOx
25A23
24,151
1,271
3.0008
0.0173
18.74
22.02
3.42
4.02
7 44
6.75
N=O'
NIA
NIA
N/A
MA
N/A
N/A
_ NIA
N/A
N/A
0.36
U.33
ROG
25,423
24,151
1,271
0.0008
0.0022
19.23
2.84
3.51
0 52
4,03
3 65
SOx
25,423
24,151
1,271
0.0000
0.0000
0.26
0.03
0 05
0.01
0 05
0.05
PM1d
25,423
24,151
1,271
0.0001
0 0008
2.17
0.83
0.40
0.15
0.55
0 50
PMre
25,423
24,151
1,271
0.0001
0.0005
139
070
0.25
0.13
0.38
0.35
CH,
25,423
24.151
1.271
0.0001
0.0001
1.73
0.14
0.32
0.02
0.34
0.31
C07
25,423
24,151
1,271
1.1015
27663
26,603.47
3,516.31
4,85513
641 73
5,496.85
4986.67
COI
r
N20
CH,
Total
I11GD,aq
metric tons per year
4,986.67
0.33
0.31
metric tons COseq per year
4.986.67
101.94
6.49
5,065.10
Nolen'
1. VMT based upon URBEMtS 2007 model output
2 Emission Fader based upon BOAC 2007 (versdn 2.3), riphast (Moss Cansanrat6 ) Errdasisn Factors lo On•R0ad Passenger Vehicles and Delivery Trucks
3. Breakdown 13195% gasoline and 5%4esal vehicles b bussed on the beet mix for the project.
4. Envision Factor for N=0 based upon a mmrerstort raw 010.04873 hem 40,10 NO. Based upon Caldomie AA Ravenous Board' Esfrnales o&Nprnus Ontde
Emissions creme Mace Wilda' end the Elfads ofCatatyd Composition and Aging, 2005.
5. Conversion from metric toss par year to metric ions of CO2eq Per year is based upon the EPA Gn.nhcuse Gas EguMlendes Calculator,
nap'llwww ape,90videeninerpyferrerpy-rasaurceskaI cu 1a10 him
Mobile Source Reduction Calculations
Measure
3.1.1 Increase Density
3.1.5 Increase Transit Accessibility
3.1.8 Locate Near Bike Path/Lane
Total
Tolat Unmitigated Emissions
Mitigated Emissions
3.1.1 Increase Density
Percent Reduction
30.0%
7.B%
0.625%
38.5%
% VMT Reduction =A* B [not to exceed 30%]
MTCO2eq
4,295.99
2,643.58
percentage in jobsper acre = (number of jobs per acre - number of jobs per acre for typical 1TE development)/
A - (number of jobs per acre for typical 1TE development)
B = Elasticity of VMT wilh respect to density (0.07)
# Jobs =
Project Acreage =
Jobs per Acre =
Jobs per Acre for Typical ITE
Development
300
3.7
81 1
20
% VMT Reduction = ((81.1 - 20)! (20)) * 0.12 = 0.3665
% VMT Reduction = = 36.65%
3.1.5 Increase Transit Accessibility
% VMT Reduction = Transit' B [not to exceed 30%)
If greater than 30%, Set to 30%
Transit = Increase in transit mode share = % transit mode share for project - % transit mode share for typical ITE development (1.3%)
Dist. to Transit
0 - 0,5 miles
05 -Smiles
> 3 miles
l3 = adjustments from transit ridership increase to VMT (0.67)
% VMT Reduction = 7.84%
' Assumes dislsnce lo kanstl Minions In project b 3 mdei
Transit mode share cdlc. equation
(where x = dist. of project to transit)
-50`x+38
-4.4"x+15.2
ho impact
3.1.8 Locate Project Near Bike Path/Bike Lane
The project must be located within 1/2 mile of an existing Class tor Class II bike lane.
When grouped with Strategy 3.1.4, the reduction in VMT would be 0.625%.
alo VMT Reduction = 0.625%
14725 Afton Par
Irvine, California
941,472.3505
fax: 949.472.8373
Appendix B
Traffic Memorandum
CONSULTING
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Patrick Lang — City of Temple City
Paul Martin — RBF Consulting
January 25, 2011
The Gateway Project Traffic Review
JN 10106860
This memorandum reviews trip generation for The Gateway (previously known as Piazza Las
Tunas) project, and compares recently collected traffic counts to historical traffic counts when
prior environmental analysis was prepared for the proposed project. The proposed project is
located on the northeast corner of the Rosemead Boulevard/Las Tunas Drive intersection in City
of Temple City.
PROPOSED LAND USES
The City of Temple City approved the Piazza Las Tunas Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (March 2006), which included a 58 condominium units, and 124,600 square feet of
commercial uses.
The currently proposed project includes 75,000 square feet of commercial uses with all
residential units removed:
• 60,500 square feet retail/restaurant uses; and
• 14,500 square feet office uses.
PLANNING • DESIGN Ili CONSTRUCTION
14725 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92618-2027 r P.O. Box 57057, Irvine, CA 92619.7057 • 949.472.3505 ■ FAX 949.472.8373
Offices located throughout California, Arizona & Nevada • www RBF corn
TRIP GENERATION REVIEW
This section summarizes forecast trip generation associated with the revised proposed project,
compared with forecast trip generation of the approved project site plan as identified in the
Traffic Study for the 9021 Las Tunas Drive Mixed -Use Project (Raju Associates, Inc., March
2006). Table 1 summarizes forecast trip generation of the proposed project identified in the
March 2006 report, which accounted for the displaced 1,600 seat movie theatre.
Table 1
Forecast Trip Generation of Approved Project
Land Use
AM Peak Hour Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
Daily
Trips
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Approved Piazza Las Tunas Project ;
45
55
100
98
94
192
1,413
ource: Traffic Study for the 9021 Las Tunas Drive Mixed -Use Project (Raju Associates, Inc., March 2006), Table 5.
As shown in Table 1, trip generation associated with the approved project is approximately
1,413 daily trips, which include approximately 100 a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 192
p.m. peak hour trips.
Revised Project Trip Generation
Consistent with prior traffic analysis, to calculate trips forecast to be generated by the revised
project land uses, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates were utilized.
Table 2 summarizes the ITE trip generation rates used to calculate the number of trips forecast
to be generated by the revised project land uses. ITE trip rates are based on surveys of
representative facilities throughout the Unites States.
Table 2
ITE Trip Rates for Revised Project Site Land Uses
Land Use (ITE Code)
Units
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
Trip
Rate
In
Out
Total
-•
In
Out
Total
Shopping Center (820)
tsf
0.61
0.39
1.00
1.83
1.90
3.73
42.94
General Office Building (710)
tsf
1.36
0.19
1.55
0.25
1.24
1.49
11.01
Source: 2008 ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8`D Edition.
Note: Is( = thousand square feel.
It should be noted, office space within the proposed project may be separated into multiple
rentable spaces, yet the General Office Building category provided by ITE applies whether the
office space is combined into one large space or separated into many spaces. As indicated in
the ITE Trip Generation Manual, when the office buildings are "interrelated (defined by shared
parking facilities or the ability to easily walk between buildings) or house one tenant, it is
suggested that the total area of all the buildings be used for calculating the trip generation."
Therefore, the subdivision or combination of office spaces within the proposed project does not
affect overall forecast trip generation.
2
Table 3 summarizes forecast trip generation of the revised project, utilizing the trip generation
rates shown in Table 2.
Table 3
Forecast Trip Generation of Revised Project
r
Land Use
AM Peak Hour Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
Daily
Trips
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
60.5 tsf Shopping Center
37
24
61
111
115
226
2,598
ITE 34% P.M. Peak Hour Pass -By Reduction'
N/A
NIA
NIA
-38
-39
-77
-77
25.0 tsf General Office Building
20
3
23
4
18
22
160
Displaced Uses (1,600 seal Movie Theater)2
-15
-5
-20
-73
-54
-127
-2,893
[_____ Total Revised Project Trip Generation
42
22
64
4
40
44
-212
i = enerauon l-lanabook, Z"' Edition, 2004.
2= Traffic Study for the 9021 Las Tunas Drive Mixed -Use Project (Raju Associates, Inc., March 2006), Table 5.
Note: Isf = thousand square feet; N/A = Not applicable.
As shown in Table 3, the revised project is forecast to generate approximately 212 Tess daily
trips, which include approximately 64 net new a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 44 net
new p.m. peak hour trips.
Since forecast a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation of the revised project is equal to or less
than trip generation forecast for the previously approved land use project, no additional traffic
impacts are expected due to the land use revisions.
TRAFFIC COUNT COMPARISON
This section compares September 2005 traffic count data at the seven study intersections
included in the Traffic Study for the 9021 Las Tunas Drive Mixed -Use Project (Raju Associates,
Inc., March 2006) with June 2009 collected traffic count data. June 2009 traffic counts were
collected while local schools were in session. Detailed traffic count data sheets for September
2005 and June 2009 counts are contained in Attachment A and Attachment B, respectively.
Table 4 summarizes the total intersection volumes between each year of data collection,
documents the change, and whether a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at the
study intersections have increased or decreased between September 2005 and June 2009.
3
Table 4
Year 2005 and Year 2009 Intersection Count Data Summary
Study Intersection
Time
Period
Analysis Year
Volume
Difference
Increase!
Decrease?
Y405
2009
1 — Rosemead Blvd/Longden Ave
AM
3412
2879
-533
Decrease
PM
3484
3510
26
Negligblel
2 — Rosemead Blvd/Elm Ave
AM
3021
2311
-710
Decrease
PM
3227
2913
-314
Decrease
3 — Rosemead Blvd/Las Tunas Dr
AM
5389
4327
-1062
Decrease
PM
5685
5462
-223
Decrease
4 — Rosemead Blvd/Broadway
AM
4287
3197
-1090
Decrease
PM
4308
4142
-166
Decrease
5 — Muscatel Ave/Las Tunas Dr
AM
2730
2685
-45
Decrease
PM
3174
3096
-78
Decrease
6 — Sultana Ave/Las Tunas Dr
AM
2359
2089
-270
Decrease
PM
2657
2582
-75
Decrease
7 -- Encinita/Las Tunas Dr
AM
2460
2316
-144
Decrease
PM
3001
2659
-342
Decrease
1 = Since less Than 1% change observed in PM peak hour, volume difference is considered negligible.
Note: Observed U -Turn movements are included in the data summary where applicable.
As shown in Table 4, June 2009 collected traffic counts are consistently lower than September
2005 traffic counts utilized for prior traffic analysis of the proposed project.
Additional traffic counts were collected at the Rosemead Boulevard/Las Tunas Drive
intersection in September 2009 and January 2011, while local schools were in session. Table 5
summarizes total volumes at the Rosemead BoulevardlLas Tunas Drive intersection for the four
available data points.
Table 5
Rosemead Boulevard/Las Tunas Drive Intersection Count Data Summary
Time Period
September
2005
June
2009
September
2009
January
2011
increase/Decrease
Relative to September 2005?
AM
5389
4327
4381
4298
Decrease
PM
5685
5462
4965
4697
Decrease
Note: Observed U -Turn movements are included in the data summary where applicable.
As shown in Table 5, recently collected January 2011 traffic counts at the Rosemead
Boulevard/Las Tunas Drive intersection show traffic volumes have consistently been lower than
September 2005 traffic counts utilized for entitlement of the proposed project.
Detailed traffic data for September 2009 and January 2011 counts at the Rosemead
Boulevard/Las Tunas Drive intersection is contained in Attachment C. Detailed total intersection
traffic volume calculations are contained in Attachment D.
4
CONCLUSIONS
Since forecast a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation of the revised project is equal to or less
than trip generation forecast for the previously approved land use project, no additional traffic
impacts are expected due to the land use revisions. Additionally, since recently collected traffic
counts are lower than counts utilized in the prior traffic analysis, no further traffic analysis of the
project is required.
Please contact me with any questions at 949.855.7005 — Paul.
5
ATTACHMENT A
September 2005 Traffic Count Data Sheets
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N -S STREET: Rosemead Blvd
E -W STREET: Longden Ave
DATE: 09/13/2005 LOCATION: City of Temple City
DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 05-2347-001
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES:
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM 5 131 4 2 131 2 5 8 2 9 25 5 329
7:15 AM 9 357 3 13 279 9 13 31 7 12 69 9 811
7:30 AM 13 366 22 20 293 20 15 51 12 22 53 16 903
7:45 AM 22 350 17 35 290 16 13 47 18 20 65 12 905
8:00 AM 26 293 13 20 276 11 9 30 15 25 63 12 793
8:15 AM 12 304 9 17 294 13 6 25 16 28 55 8 787
8:30 AM 15 283 9 13 279 13 5 25 19 16 61 8 746
8:45 AM 3 137 6 10 150 3 7 18 4 12 23 6 379
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL ST SR
EL ET ER
WL WT WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
105
2221
83
1
130 1992 87
1
73 235 93
141 414 76
1
5653
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 715 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 70 1366 55 88 1138 56 50 159 52 79 250 49 3412
1
1
0.930 0.940 0.837 0.945
PEAK HR.
CONTROL:
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N -S STREET: Rosemead Blvd
E -W STREET: Longden Ave
DATE: 09/13/2005
DAY: TUESDAY
LOCATION: City of Temple City
PROJECT# 05-2347-001
LANES:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
3:00 PM
3:15 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM 10 195 8 29 237 13 9 28 8 8 14 11 570
4:15 PM 12 276 21 41 332 11 12 44 11 11 25 10 806
4:30 PM 12 268 11 29 311 7 10 51 11 13 32 6 761
4:45 PM 15 276 15 33 310 17 8 50 14 13 31 5 787
5:00 PM 22 317 33 33 316 16 14 70 14 18 42 13 908
5:15 PM 9 316 22 30 338 11 4 61 15 13 37 12 868
5:30 PM 21 297 30 37 352 11 15 80 5 16 40 17 921
5:45 PM 13 274 18 45 269 11 9 59 14 19 43 9 783
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
114
2219
158
277
2465
97
81
443
92
111
264
83
6404
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 67 1206 100
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
CONTROL:
0.923
133 1316 55 41 261 48 60 150 47 3484
1
0.940 0.875 0.880 0.946
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N -S STREET: Rosemead Blvd
E -W STREET: Elm Ave
DATE: 9/13/2005 LOCATION: City of Temple City
DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 05-2347-002
LANES:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM 2 350 0 0 304 1 1 2 0 0 2 662
7:15 AM 4 341 1 2 312 3 0 0 0 0 2 665
7:30 AM 3 402 0 4 313 0 1 1 0 1 3 728
7:45 AM 3 423 0 3 320 2 1 1 0 0 1 754
8:00 AM 2 482 0 0 357 0 0 3 0 0 0 844
8:15 AM 4 362 4 4 315 5 1 0 0 0 0 695
8:30 AM 4 331 7 5 339 1 0 0 1 0 0 688
8:45 AM 2 362 0 0 326 1 0 1 0 0 1 693
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
NL NT NR
24 3053 12
SL ST SR
18 2586 13
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM
PEAK
1 VOLUMES = 12 1669 4 11 1305 7
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.870 0.926
CONTROL:
EL ET ER
4 0 8
3 0 5
0.667
WL WT WR
1 1 9
TOTAL
5729
0 1 4 3021
0.313 0.895
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N -S STREET: Rosemead Blvd DATE: 9/13/2005
E -W STREET: Elm Ave DAY: TUESDAY
LOCATION: City of Temple City
PROJECT# 05-2347-007,
LANES:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
3:00 PM
3:15 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM 4 318 1 1 364 2 2 0 1 0 0 693
4:15 PM 6 333 5 7 385 6 1 0 4 0 2 749
4:30 PM 5 325 3 14 377 8 0 1 6 1 2 742
4:45 PM 8 344 1 14 402 6 0 0 6 0 2 783
5:00 PM 4 370 6 9 395 2 1 0 13 0 1 801
5:15 PM 11 400 3 15 382 7 0 0 14 0 5 837
5:30 PM 2 380 1 11 390 4 0 0 15 0 3 806
5:45 PM 7 366 3 13 335 7 0 0 18 0 2 751
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
47
2836
23
84
3030
42
4
1
77
1
0
17
6162
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM
PEAK
1 VOLUMES = 25 1494 11 49 1569 19
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.924 0.970
CONTROL:
1 0 48 0 0 11 3227
0.817 0.550 0.964
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
CLIENT. RAJU ASSOCIATES, INC.
PROJECT. TEMPLE CITY TMC PROJECT
DATE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
PERIOD: 07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM
INTERSECTION. N!S ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
ENV LAS TUNAS DRIVE
1 -AM
FILE NUMBER:
15 MINUTE
TOTALS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SBRT
SETH
SBLT
WBRT
WBTH
WBLT
NBRT
NBTH
NBLT
EBRT
EBTH
EBLT
700-715 40 250 16 25 285 33 20 260 49 35 64 67
715-730 44 280 23 27 282 39 17 268 54 23 83 51
730.745 44 245 25 36 281 33 13 296 78 31 148 73
745-800 44 247 30 34 278 32 25 312 95 49 137 80
800.815 39 274 47 59 263 56 15 309 98 33 159 116
815-830 40 245 30 38 275 43 32 260 62 22 136 72
830-845 48 264 28 36 280 46 28 232 92 24 112 74
845-900 49 250 28 40 277 52 27 245 79 20 105 79
1 HOUR
TOTALS
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
SBRT
SBTH
SBLT
WBRT
WBTH
WBLT
NBRT
NBTH
NBLT
EBRT
EBTH
EBLT
TOTALS
700-800 172 1022 94 122 1126 137 75 1136 276 138 432 271 5001
715-815 171 1046 125 156 1104 160 70 1185 325 136 527 320 5325
730-830 167 1011 132 167 1097 164 85 1177 333 135 580 341 5389
745-845 171 1030 135 167 1096 177 100 1113 347 128 544 342 5350
800-900 176 1033 133 173 1095 197 102 1046 331 99 512 341 5238
A.M. PEAK HOUR
730-830
LAS TUNAS DRIVE
THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION
329 DIAMOND STREET
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
626,446.7978
167 1011 132
341
167
580 1097
135 164
I
333 1177 85
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
CLIENT: RAJU ASSOCIATES, INC.
PROJECT: TEMPLE CITY TMC PROJECT
DATE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
PERIOD: 04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM
INTERSECTION. NIS ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
ENV LAS TUNAS DRIVE
1 -PM
FILE NUMBER:
i5 MINUTE
TOTALS
1
2
3 T
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SBRT
SBTH
SBLT
WBRT
WBTH
WBLT
NBRT
NBTH
NBLT
EBRT
EBTH
EBLT
400-415 26 298 41 14 144 52 39 227 50 48 222 82
415-430 25 321 43 19 141 56 38 234 55 37 191 91
430-445 24 306 54 24 14i 48 42 237 66 52 212 72
445-500 29 314 65 25 143 54 37 243 7i 58 221 85
500-515 18 329 56 40 157 50 40 254 87 61 276 86
515.530 27 315 54 29 169 61 40 275 69 50 265 110
530-545 21 309 68 35 161 63 38 242 67 38 279 101
545-600 15 275 63 38 151 60 31 238 68 38 234 92
1 HOUR
TOTALS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SBRT
SBTH
SBLT
WBRT
WBTH
WBLT
NBRT
NBTH
NBLT
EBRT
EBTH
EBLT
TOTALS
400.500 104 1239 203 82 569 210 156 941 242 195 846 330 5117
415-515 96 1270 218 108 582 208 157 968 279 208 900 334 5328
430-530 98 1264 229 118 610 213 159 1009 293 221 974 353 5541
445-545 95 1267 243 129 630 228 155 1014 294 207 1041 382 5685
500-600 81 1228 241 142 638 234 149 1009 291 187 1054 389 5643
P.M. PEAK HOUR
445-545
LAS TUNAS DRIVE
95
4
382
1267 243
129
1041 630
207 228
THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION
329 DIAMOND STREET
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
626.446.7978
294
1014
4
r
155
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
CLIENT. RAJU ASSOCIATES, INC.
PROJECT: TEMPLE CITY TMC PROJECT
DATE. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
PERIOD: 07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM
INTERSECTION: N/S ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
EIW BROADWAY
2 -AM
FILE NUMBER:
15 MINUTE
TOTALS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SBRT
SBTH
_ SBLT
WBRT
WBTH
WELT
NBRT
NBTH
NBLT
EBRT
EBTH
EBLT
700-715 10 260 6 18 77 24 11 304 20 31 18 10
715-730 7 307 11 20 87 29 12 315 37 37 36 16
730-745 10 323 15 25 125 32 17 332 57 53 52 20
745.800 18 283 25 30 90 34 19 355 63 53 69 20
800-815 17 273 27 26 95 26 11 348 81 87 63 20
815-830 23 280 31 40 122 27 16 333 75 55 71 20
830-845 23 273 28 36 132 40 10 310 52 62 64 14
845-900 21 290 19 23 96 27 11 301 57 55 66 13
1 HOUR
TOTALS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SBRT
SBTH
SBLT
WBRT
WBTH
WBLT
NBRT
NBTH
NBLT
EBRT
EBTH
EBLT
TOTALS
700-800 45 1173 57 93 379 119 59 1306 177 174 175 66 3823
715-815 52 1186 78 101 397 121 59 1350 238 230 220 76 4108
730-830 68 1159 98 121 432 119 63 1368 276 248 255 80 4287
745-845 81 1109 111 132 439 127 56 1346 271 257 267 74 4270
800-900 84 1116 105 125 445 120 48 1292 265 259 264 67 4190
A.M. PEAK HOUR
730-830
BROADWAY
THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION
329 DIAMOND STREET
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
626.446.7978
68 1159 98
80
L
121
255 ` 432
248 119
4
276
1368
r
63
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
CLIENT RAJU ASSOCIATES, INC.
PROJECT. TEMPLE CITY TMC PROJECT
DATE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
PERIOD: 04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM
INTERSECTION NIS ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
E/W BROADWAY
2 -PM
FILE NUMBER:
15 MINUTE
TOTALS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SBRT
SBTH
SBLT
WBRT
WBTH
WBLT
NBRT
NBTH
NBLT
EBRT
EBTH
EBLT
400-415 25 322 27 15 52 12 21 269 52 32 91 2B
415-430 19 346 27 31 52 17 12 276 33 34 73 16
430-445 17 342 39 38 52 15 22 297 53 46 111 25
445-500 24 357 52 37 62 10 19 310 48 40 106 17
500-515 26 373 46 25 73 16 15 300 30 32 87 15
515-530 26 376 55 37 104 14 18 289 45 29 121 17
530-545 21 342 52 25 71 13 10 288 34 32 81 12
545-600 29 338 52 24 63 10 11 310 53 41 101 18
1 HOUR
TOTALS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SBRT
SBTH
SBLT
WBRT
WBTH
WBLT
NBRT
NBTH
NBLT
EBRT
EBTH
EBLT
TOTALS
400-500 85 1367 145 121 218 54 74 1152 186 152 381 86 4021
415-515 86 1418 164 131 239 58 68 1183 164 152 377 73 4113
430-530 93 1448 192 137 291 55 74 1196 176 147 425 74 4308
445-545 97 1448 205 124 310 53 62 1187 157 133 395 61 4232
500-600 102 1429 205 111 311 53 54 1187 162 134 390 62 4200
P.M. PEAK HOUR
430-530
BROADWAY
THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION
329 DIAMOND STREET
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
626.446.7978
93+
74
1448 192
137
425 291
147 55
1
i
176 1196
r
74
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N -S STREET: Muscatel Ave
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 9/13/2005 LOCATION: City of Temple City
DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 05-2347-003
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES:
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM 11 2 4 4 7 16 2 87 13 6 230 1 383
7:15 AM 27 16 7 12 17 22 14 117 40 13 294 6 585
7:30 AM 50 19 16 14 27 26 7 169 69 19 297 6 719
7:45 AM 46 23 23 25 15 18 13 184 73 13 296 5 734
8:00 AM 37 27 43 14 20 28 7 162 15 9 321 9 692
8:15 AM 19 11 23 5 9 22 7 145 8 7 317 4 577
8:30 AM 5 7 6 12 7 24 7 157 4 2 290 10 531
8:45 AM 10 4 7 12 6 19 11 108 4 3 234 8 426
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
205
109
129
98
108
175
68
1129
226
72
2279
49
4647
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 715 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
CONTROL:
160 85 89 65 79 94 41 632 197 1
54 1208 26
0.780 0.688 0.806 0.950
2730
0.930
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N -S STREET: Muscatel Ave
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 9/13/2005
DAY: TUESDAY
LOCATION: City of Temple City
PROJECT# 05-2347-003
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES:
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
3:00 PM
3:15 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM 1 11 5 7 3 2 15 212 5 9 118 8 396
4:15 PM 9 9 12 17 9 26 14 324 14 8 215 25 682
4:30 PM 11 14 16 20 14 16 16 344 9 9 206 23 698
4:45 PM 11 13 14 20 17 24 18 355 11 16 211 23 733
5:00 PM 5 15 21 23 36 12 20 362 9 15 244 26 788
5:15 PM 12 24 19 8 18 16 17 385 14 10 226 27 776
5:30 PM 14 9 15 16 20 20 22 412 9 24 225 21 807
5:45 PM 9 18 14 18 22 16 25 408 5 14 228 26 803
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 72 113 116 129 139 132 147 2802 76 105 1673 179 5683
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
CONTROL:
40
66 69
0.795
65 96 64 84 1567 37 63 923 100 3174
0.792 0.953 0.953 0.983
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N -S STREET: Suitana Ave DATE: 9/13/2005
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr DAY: TUESDAY
LOCATION: City of Temple City
PROJECT# 05-2347-004
LANES:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM 1 4 9 2 2 9 4 106 1 13 333 2 486
7:15 AM 2 1 5 1 1 5 1 109 0 12 341 2 480
7:30 AM 1 5 12 1 1 10 2 186 1 13 339 5 576
7:45 AM 9 9 7 3 6 10 5 184 0 16 325 1 575
8:00 AM 8 10 13 1 3 14 4 208 2 15 356 1 635
8:15 AM 0 4 8 0 4 6 2 174 3 21 350 1 573
8:30 AM 4 5 7 2 5 7 3 144 3 13 351 1 545
8:45 AM 2 4 9 2 2 3 1 182 3 24 364 4 600
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
NL NT NR
27 42 70
SL ST SR
12 24 64
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM
EL ET ER
22 1293 13
WL WT WR
127 2759 17
TOTAL
4470
PEAK
VOLUMES = 18 28 40 5 11 40 13 752 6 65 1370 8 2359
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.694 0.776 0.901 0.970 0,92
CONTROL:
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N -S STREET: Suitana Ave
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 9/13/2005 LOCATION: City of Temple City
DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 05-2347-004
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES:
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
3:00 PM
3:15 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM 2 3 13 3 4 6 5 310 9 6 177 4 542
4:15 PM 2 6 9 5 3 5 5 277 9 8 201 2 532
4:30 PM 3 4 5 9 1 2 9 364 22 7 271 1 698
4:45 PM 6 3 7 3 1 5 9 314 6 4 217 0 575
5:00 PM 5 3 7 0 0 5 4 324 13 6 208 4 579
5:15 PM 2 2 12 0 3 2 6 353 12 10 281 3 686
5:30 PM 5 1 11 10 5 8 12 357 12 11 252 6 690
5:45 PM 5 1 8 6 8 2 10 382 13 12 249 6 702
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL ST SR
EL ET ER
WL WT WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
30
23
72
1
36 25 35
1
60 2681 96
1
64 1856 26
5004
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
17 7 38 16 16 17 32 1416 50 39 990 19 2657
0.912 0.533 0.925 0.891 0.946
CONTROL:
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N -S STREET: Encinita DATE: 9/13/2005
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr DAY: TUESDAY
LOCATION: City of Temple City
PROJECT# 05-2347-005
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES:
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM 11 7 7 1 7 4 0 70 1 2 208 2 320
7:15 AM 25 20 9 4 6 8 2 104 6 6 247 2 439
7:30 AM 33 22 7 2 13 13 5 139 7 8 205 3 457
7:45 AM 21 15 18 6 9 10 1 157 4 7 227 3 478
8:00 AM 15 18 14 2 21 9 4 274 8 12 306 10 693
8:15 AM 18 12 11 2 17 13 3 180 6 10 311 3 586
8:30 AM 18 18 14 6 27 19 6 228 12 11 339 5 703
8:45 AM 16 14 10 4 10 13 2 152 0 8 205 2 436
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
TOTALTOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR
VOLUMES = 157 126 90 27 110 89 23 1304 44 64 2048 30 4112
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM
PEAK
1
1
VOLUMES = 72 63 57 16 74 51
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.889 0.678
CONTROL:
i 0.772 i
14
839 30
40 1183 21 2460
0.876 0.875
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N -S STREET: Encinita
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 9/13/2005 LOCATION: City of Temple City
DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 05-2347-005
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES:
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
3:00 PM
3:15 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM 13 22 13 3 17 4 27 295 5 5 220 12 636
4:15 PM 7 27 19 8 24 8 6 264 11 11 229 2 616
4:30 PM 11 16 15 7 14 6 5 284 15 7 199 3 582
4:45 PM 9 10 15 5 19 6 5 336 14 4 187 4 614
5:00 PM 36 15 16 10 31 9 6 495 15 21 307 2 963
5:15 PM 19 18 14 3 16 11 4 349 14 12 248 1 709
5:30 PM 12 18 18 3 25 9 7 354 14 15 237 3 715
5:45 PM 12 17 12 6 20 5 3 289 15 11 201 4 595
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
119
143
122
45
166
58
63
2666
103
86
1828
31
5430
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
CONTROL:
76 61 63
0.746
21 91 35 22 1534 57 52 979 10 3001
OrT35 (1761. 0.789 0.779
ATTACHMENT B
June 2009 Traffic Count Data Sheets
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Rosemead Blvd
E -W STREET: Longden Ave
DATE: 06/10/2009
DAY: WEDNESDAY
LOCATION: City of Temple City
PROJECT# 09-5230-001
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM 8 221 17 7 174 1 7 34 11 14 45 11 550
7:15 AM 5 236 9 10 220 7 7 19 7 16 51 6 593
7:30 AM 4 274 5 11 213 3 11 29 12 10 56 9 637
7:45 AM 11 269 10 17 234 12 6 34 5 12 40 9 659
8:00 AM 5 322 19 29 223 12 18 57 12 22 59 21 799
8:15 AM 7 279 17 22 250 12 16 32 17 25 62 13 752
8:30 AM 7 238 13 15 222 16 9 39 14 20 61 15 669
8:45 AM 9 256 11 16 230 7 14 33 10 15 42 9 652
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
TOTAL NL NT NR
VOLUMES = 56 2095 101
AM Peak Hr Begins at:
PEAK
VOLUMES =
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
SL ST SR
127 1766 70
745 AM
30 1108 59 83
0.865
CONTROL: Signalized
929 52
0.937
EL ET ER
88 277 88
49 162 48
0.744
WL WT WR
134 416 93
79 222 58
0.880
TOTAL
5311
2879
0.901
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Rosemead Blvd
E -W STREET: Longden Ave
DATE: 06/10/2009 LOCATION: City of Temple City
DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 09-5230-001
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
3:00 PM
3:15 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM 11 288 19 34 284 8 19 51 16 18 50 9 807
4:15 PM 12 280 16 18 307 9 4 45 16 17 36 16 776
4:30 PM 14 284 21 34 352 13 11 51 9 15 51 10 865
4:45 PM 10 299 19 37 313 11 15 61 10 15 34 12 836
5:00 PM 17 286 18 38 321 16 24 63 7 15 38 19 862
5:15 PM 17 295 23 38 354 9 18 57 14 15 49 15 904
5:30 PM 10 283 20 30 323 13 16 68 14 20 45 8 850
5:45 PM 14 319 19 41 328 15 10 61 17 14 42 14 894
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
105
2334
155
270
2582
94
117
457
103
129
345
103
6794
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
58 1183 80 147 1326 53
0.938 0.951
CONTROL: Signalized
68 249 52
0.941
64 174 56
0.930
3510
0.971
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Rosemead Blvd
E -W STREET: E!m Ave
DATE: 06/10/2009 LOCATION: City of Temple City
DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 09-5230-002
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
3:00 PM
3:15 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM 8 329 1 0 314 5 0 7
4:15 PM 3 314 0 0 342 1 0 11
4:30 PM 3 330 0 0 359 2 0 8
4:45 PM 4 351 0 0 320 7 1 4
5:00 PM 2 363 0 0 334 10 1 10
5:15 PM 4 359 0 2 369 6 0 14
5:30 PM 6 339 1 0 350 8 0 12
5:45 PM 3 345 0 0 346 8 0 19
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
0 664
0 671
0 702
0 687
0 720
2 756
0 716
0 721
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
33
2730
2
2
2734
47
2
0
85
0
0
2
5637
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
15 1406 1
0.974
CONTROL: 2 -Way Stop (E/W)
2 1399 32
0.950
0 55 1 0 0 2
0.737 1 0,250
2913
0.963
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Rosemead Blvd
E -W STREET: Elm Ave
DATE: 06/10/2009 LOCATION: City of Temple City
DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 09-5230-002
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM 3 245 0 0 207 2 1 0 0 458
7:15 AM 3 234 0 0 242 1 0 1 0 481
7:30 AM 0 275 0 0 249 3 0 2 0 529
7:45 AM 2 294 0 0 263 3 0 1 0 563
8:00 AM 2 336 1 1 276 4 0 8 1 629
8:15 AM 2 273 0 0 284 6 0 4 2 571
8:30 AM 3 257 0 0 282 3 0 3 0 548
8:45 AM 3 253 1 0 252 1 0 3 0 513
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
18
2167
2
1
2055
23
1
0
22
0
0
3
4292
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 9 1160 1 1 1105 16 0 0 16 0 0 3
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.863 0.967 0.500 0375
CONTROL: 2 -Way Stop (E/W)
2311
0.919
Intersection Turning Movement
PrIsi•►4l by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET; Rosemead Blvd
E•W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 06/10/2039 LOCATION: City of Temple CAy
DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT* 095230-003
LANES:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR 51 5T SR EL ET ER WI., WT WR TOTAL NB U-Tums SB U -Turns EB U-Tums WB U -Turns
2 2 0 2 2 0 2 3 1 2 3 1
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
B:30 AM
8:45 AM
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
34 210 11 9 188 14 20 37 14 29 120 16 702 0 0 1 0
39 191 9 14 192 27 26 55 22 30 244 21 870 0 1 3 2
61 224 12 17 168 39 26 78 11 31 229 22 938 1 1 0 2
57 233 17 27 181 45 30 94 19 32 278 32 1045 0 0 1 1
75 257 24 43 210 37 45 113 10 35 254 38 1141 1 2 5 0
79 216 23 37 194 34 23 124 14 36 278 38 1098 I 0 0 1
54 182 24 35 223 46 40 115 30 30 212 34 1025 0 2 3 1
61 202 2I 23 199 32 26 100 30 47 216 27 985 1 0 0 1
TOTAL
VOLUMES
AM Peak Hr Begins 8t:
PEAK
VOLUMES o 265 888 88 142 808 162 1138 446 73 135 1022 147 l 4309
I 1 Ill
NI. NT NR SL
460 1715 142 205
745 AM
ST SR l EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
1575 274 1236 716 150 1 272 1831 228 7804
PEAK HR,
FACTOR:
0.871
CONTROL: Signalized
0.914 0.888 0.917 0.944
!NB U-Tums 56 U -Turns EB U-Tums WB U-Twns
4 6 13 8
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
14•S STREET: Rosemead Blve
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 06110!2009 LOCATION: Coy of Temple Gty
DAY: WEDNESDAY PRO]ECTIF 09-5230-003
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB U Tums 513 U -Turns EB U -Turns WO U -Turns
LANES: 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 3 1 2 3 1
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
3:00 PM
3:15 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 P4
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
51 231 42 58 253 31 63 233 44 55 156 39 1259 5 1 5 1
53 213 40 54 233 37 71 191 50 52 140 32 1166 7 2 11 2
59 220 31 61 290 36 66 252 60 46 98 46 1265 0 3 6 0
56 247 39 35 242 37 74 244 38 40 142 36 1230 2 2 5 2
63 239 35 64 267 32 B0 232 53 56 161 37 1319 3 4 10 2
57 251 33 48 299 27 70 269 56 51 191 37 1397 7 I 2 1
63 234 32 73 304 45 135 256 61 50 179 28 1410 1 2 2 2
64 236 31 66 253 25 69 229 52 42 168 38 1295 2 2 0 0
NL NT NR
466 1874 283
SL ST SR
461 2141 270
PM Peak Hr Begins at: SOB PM
PEAK
VOLUMES
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
247 960 131 1253 1123 129
0.98i
CONTROL: Signalized
0.692
EL ET ER
586 1906 414
312 986 222 1199 719 140 1 5421
WL WT WR
392 1255 293
TOTAL
10341
0.942 0.448 0.961
NB U -Tuns SB U -Turns EB U -Turns W13 U -Turns
27 17 41 10
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Rosemead Blvd
E -W STREET: Broadway
DATE: 06/10/2009 LOCATION: City or Temple City
DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 09-5230-004
LANES:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR 5L ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
EB U -Turns W8 U -Turns
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM 21 241 7 5 203 8 3 15 13 20 39 15 590 0 0
7:15 A14 24 242 7 11 232 8 9 33 32 20 64 10 692 0 1
7:30 AM 40 282 11 8 195 11 9 35 33 16 59 13 712 0 2
7:45 AM 46 269 27 21 215 10 15 58 40 19 60 26 806 1 4
8:00 AM 42 321 20 18 209 5 16 62 38 20 44 35 830 1 3
8:15 AM 32 254 13 25 219 14 16 67 39 21 67 24 791 0 8
8:30 AM 20 259 10 21 231 18 11 38 25 16 82 18 749 1 3
8:45 AM 32 257 11 20 223 15 8 41 32 16 106 22 783 0 5
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
TOTAL I NL NT NR SL ST SR
VOLUMES = ! 257 2125 106 129 1727 89
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM
EL ET ER
87 349 252
WL WT WR1
TOTAL
148 521 163 5953
PEAK
VOLUMES = 140 1103 70 85 874 47 58 225 142 1 76 253 103 1 3176
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.857 0.931 0.871 0.931 0.97
CONTROL: Signalized
IEB U -Turns WB U -Turns
3 26
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Rosemead Blvd
E -W STREET: Broadway
DATE: 06/10/2009 LOCATION: City of Temple City
DAY: WEDNESDAY PRO)ECT# 09-5230-004
LANES:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL EB U -Turns WB U -Turns
1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
3:00 PM
3:15 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 pM 41 300 27 23 299 19 24 65 33 7 32 19 889 1 9
4:15 PM 42 280 17 24 310 25 21 69 30 11 54 14 897 0 6
4:30 PM 38 310 29 22 343 17 18 87 39 11 50 12 976 1 6
4:45 PM 40 291 24 25 302 17 18 100 31 11 50 14 923 0 5
5:00 PM 42 341 21 24 314 19 17 97 38 12 66 1B 1009 0 6
5:15 PM 4B 299 19 36 336 25 25 120 30 9 66 24 1037 0 7
5:30 PM 64 296 32 29 356 18 23 102 26 16 60 22 1044 1 10
5:45 PM 52 289 29 31 317 23 12 133 35 10 74 17 1022 0 6
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR
VOLUMES = 367 2406 198 214 2577 163
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM
EL ET ER
158 773 262
WL WT WR l TOTAL
87 452 140 7797
PEAK
VOLUMES = 206 1225 101 120 1323 85 77 452 129 47 266 81 4112
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.948 0.948 0.914 0.975 0.985
CONTROL: Signalized
EB U -Turns WB U -Turns
3 55
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Muscatel Ave
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 06/10/2009 LOCATION: City of Temple City
DAY: WEDNESDAY PRO]ECT# 09.5230-005
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL EB U -Turns W8 U -Turns
LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM 5 5 5 12 2 26 2 59 2 1 186 3 308 1 0
7:15 AM 13 3 6 11 6 27 13 81 3 5 304 11 483 4 0
7:30 AM 33 19 8 9 11 30 18 120 4 7 314 11 584 1 0
7:45 AM 62 28 8 9 8 27 26 141 8 3 339 17 676 3 0
8:00 AM 65 21 12 19 9 26 24 149 21 B 364 8 726 5 0
8:15 AM 36 23 5 8 15 14 19 159 11 7 377 15 689 1 0
8:30 AM 2 9 0 11 9 31 11 178 2 7 300 16 576 0 0
8:45 AM 6 11 3 13 10 32 11 125 2 3 256 23 495 1 0
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
TOTAL NL NT NR 51 ST SR
VOLUMES = 222 119 47 92 70 213
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 196 91
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
0.816
CONTROL: Signalized
EL ET ER
124 1012 53
WL WT WR
41 2440 104
TOTAL
4537
33 45 43 97 87 569 44 25 1394 51 2675
0.856 0.902 0.921 0.921
EB U -Turns WB U -Turns
16 0
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Muscatel Ave
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 06/10/2009 LOCATION: City of Temple City
DAY: WEDNESDAY PRO]ECT# 09-5230-005
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL EB U -Turns WB U -Turns
LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
3:00 PM
3:15 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM 4 7 8 10 11 23 32 315 8 10 218 24 670 1 5
4:15 PM 15 10 5 13 13 19 20 313 7 7 232 19 673 0 4
4:30 PM 8 B 14 8 11 13 21 367 11 11 195 26 693 0 5
4:45 PM 7 11 14 14 14 16 23 337 10 9 215 23 693 1 1
5:00 PM 10 22 11 14 13 19 19 355 12 12 233 32 752 1 2
5:15 PM 11 16 16 20 12 21 15 383 10 4 245 40 793 0 4
5:30 PM 12 16 12 19 25 29 23 370 10 9 251 34 810 0 5
5:45 PM 7 20 6 21 9 22 29 326 9 8 243 26 726 0 3
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
NL NT NR
74 110 86
5L ST SR
119 108 162
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 40 74 45
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.924
CONTROL: Signalized
EL ET ER
182 2766 77
74 59 91 86 1434 41
0,767 0.956
WL WT WR
70 1832 224
TOTAL
5810
33 972 132 3081
0.967 0.951
EB U -Turns WB U -Turns
3 29
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Sultana Ave
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 06/10/2009
DAY: WEDNESDAY
LOCATION: City of Temple City
PROJECT# 09-5230-006
LANES:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
NL NT NR
0 1 0
SL ST SR EL
0 1 0 1
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
2 1 1 2 0
6:OOAM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
5 0 11 0 3 4 2 55
6 0 10 0 1 6 1 79
8 0 11 1 3 8 3 98
8 6 8 2 3 9 0 132
8 4 11 0 6 10 2 176
12 9 5 4 5 16 1 177
5 3 7 1 3 4 2 159
8 2 9 1 3 11 2 145
2
3
3
2
11
6
7
4
7 162
5 284
5 270
3 326
12 307
17 328
2 267
8 268
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
252
395
410
499
548
580
462
463
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL ST SR
EL ET ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
60
24
72
9 27 68
1
13 1021 38
I
59
2212
6
3609
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 33 22 31
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
0.827
CONTROL: Signalized
7 17 39 5
0.630
644 26
0.893
34 1228 3
0.917
2089
0.900
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Sultana Ave
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 06/10/2009
DAY: WEDNESDAY
LOCATION: City of Temple City
PROJECT# 09-5230-006
LANES:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL
0 1 0 0 1 0 1
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
2 1 1 2 0
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
3:00 PM
3:15 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
7 1 11
0 2 14
3 8 11
5 3 14
3 0 9
6 3 7
9 5 20
11 6 16
0 1 6 3
2 4 6 4
3 3 3 7
1 4 5 8
1 4 2 1
1 2 11 6
1 1 3 9
0 2 2 6
318
276
313
305
322
332
337
313
7
11
21
11
12
15
17
14
11
8
12
5
14
12
10
11
237
223
188
209
255
261
247
253
2
1
2
7
2
1
3
1
607
551
574
577
628
657
662
635
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
44
31
102
9
21
38
17
2516
108
83
1873
19
4891
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
29 14 52 3 9 18 25
0.699 0.536
1304 58 47 1016 7 2582
0.955 0.976 0.975
CONTROL: Signalized
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET:
E -W STREET:
Encinita Ave
Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 06/10/2009
DAY: WEDNESDAY
LOCATION: City of Temple City
PROJECT# 09-5230-007
LANES:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
NL NT
0 1
NR SL ST SR EL
0 0 1 0 1
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
2 0 1 2 0
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
7
19
16
19
16
18
13
11
20
14
12
35
62
30
26
15
20
6
8
17
29
22
6
10
2 8
1 17
1 12
3 23
6 32
5 44
10 19
6 6
5 5
6 0
7 0
14 0
7 3
11 2
8 1
10 0
58
82
107
127
144
192
156
144
0
0
3
6
7
4
11
5
4
11
7
11
15
13
18
11
164
248
238
281
293
309
236
254
2
1
1
1
2
6
3
1
295
405
412
537
616
656
507
473
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
119
214
118
34
161
68
11
1010
36
90
2023
17
3901
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
CONTROL:
66 153
0.685
Signalized
74
24 118 40 1
6 619 28 57
0.758 0.824
1119 12 2316
0.905 0.883
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Encinita Ave
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 06/10/2009
DAY: WEDNESDAY
LOCATION: City of Temple City
PROJECT# 09-5230-007
LANES:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL
0 1 0 0 1 0 1
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
2 0 1 2 0
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
3:00 PM
3:15 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
15
16
11
10
16
13
16
8
15
15
22
11
20
20
21
26
18
15
13
26
11
19
19
18
2
4
2
5
4
9
6
10
20
11
16
11
16
20
19
22
11
8
4
10
11
6
6
8
6
6
2
4
6
0
2
2
289
280
287
323
297
310
317
325
13 15
10 6
10 15
8 11
7 7
16 6
14 14
10 13
237 3
198 1
200 2
194 0
242 1
246 4
233 2
235 3
644
570
584
613
641
669
669
680
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
105
150
142
42
135
64
28
2428
88
87
1785
16
5070
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
53 87 70
0.938
CONTROL: Signalized
29 77 31 10 1249 47
0.856 0.969
40 956 10
0.982
2659
0.978
ATTACHMENT C
September 2009 & January 2011
Traffic Count Data Sheets
DATE:
9/15/09
TUESDAY
NOTES:
LOCATION:
NORTH & SOUTH:
EAST & WEST:
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVE MENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES
TEMPLE CITY PROJECT #:
ROSEMEAD LOCATION #:
LAS TUNAS CONTROL:
CA09-0918-3
1
SIGNAL
U-TURNS ARE INCLUDED IN LEFT TURNS.
t W
S
V
E
LANES:
NL
2
NORTHBOUND
ROSEMEAD
NT
2
NR
0
SL
2
SOUTHBOUND
R OSEMEAD
ST
2
,':1.0 AN4
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
37
177 10 11 186
201 6 24 216
237 16 35 243
214 7 40 179
257 13 43 203
249 19 28 175
183
140
1,658
75%
48
50
63
70
8:45 AM
Q VOLUMES
APPROACH 0/0
APP/DEPART
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES
APPROACH 0/0
PEAK HR FACTOR
APP/DEPART
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM_ 63 186 27 44 299 J 22 77 39 43
4:45 PM 70 230 28 45 265 31 82 49 51
5:00 PM 71 212 26 56 284 32 66 235 36 44
5:15 PM 79 209 38 48 252 30 71 239 45 48 136
78 202 40 46 308 29 83 242 45 57 142
5:45 PM 66 166 30 64 269 34 79 256 55 37 156
535 1,551 258 382 2,170 237 590 1,761 365 369 1,088 159
23% 66% 11% 14% 78% 8% 22% 65% 13% 23% 67% 10%
2,344 / 2,300 2,789 / 2,904 2,716 / 2,401 1,616 / 1,860
5:30 PM
VOLUMES
APPROACH
APP/DEPART
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUM ES
APPROACH
PEAK r -ACTOR
APP/D ..T 1,217 / 1,181 1,452 / 1,480 1,4
77
69
33
447
20%
2,211
SR
0
EL
2
EASTBOUND
LAS TUNAS
ET
3
ER
1
WL
2
WESTBOUND
LAS TUNAS
WT
3
WR
1
TOTAL
17 20 50 21 36 199 18 782
14 30 58 25 37 211 14 _ 884
26 34 67 22 43 22523 1,021
27 39 L 119 17 30 255 43 1,033
40 .53_130 _29 47 __246 ._ _36_��1,167 _
38 43 131 22 47 292 _ 39 1460
19 30 172 29 49 119 23 34 228 29 984
16 30 195 27 34 110 15 53 190 22 865
106 241 1,569 218 302 784 174 327 1,846 224 7,896
5% 12% 77% 11% 24% 62% 14% 14% 77% 9%
2,184 2,028 / 2,070 1,260 / 1,131 2,397 / 2,511 , 0
7:30 AM
260 957 55
20% 75% 4%
0. 922
1,272
56
52
1
170
176
146 800 131 169 447
14% 74% 12% 24% 63%
0.886 0 .833
1,267 1,077
32 31
37 48
252
241 26 70
1,057 706
33 62
/
186
187
90 167 1,018 141 4,381
13% 13% 77%
0.877
648 1,326
45 49
51 40
201
215
5:00 PM
294 789 134 214 1,113 125 299 972
24% 65% 11% 15% 77% 9% 21% 67%
0.933 0. 948 0,931
11%
0 .939
1,409 _ 0
17
1144.;'7011
128 23 1,152
140 15 1,221
131
1,079
1,048
26 1,219
24 1,219
20 1,292_
23 1,235
9,465
181 186 565 93 4,965
12% 22% 67% 11%
0.963
1,320 844 / 984
0.961
0
U-TURNS
NB
X
SB EB : WB
X X ; X
TTL
0
1
1
0
0
2
1
2
1�
3 H
0
4 0
-0-- _, 1
10_.0
4' 0
6�
3
2
4
c 0
LO
2 •
-9
2
2
0
11
_ 5
11_
2
1 0.
1
6 5
26
7
44
2
' 2
9
2
15
2
2
8 ,
2
14
3
1 ,
5 `
5
14
1
2 '
10
1
14
1_
1.--,_
2
1
T 5
3
4_ :
3
1
11
2
2
2 .
0
6
15
17
48 1
14
94
DATE:
1/20/11
THURSDAY
NOTES:
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES
LOCATION: TEMPLE CITY PROJECT #: CA11-0121-04
NORTH & SOUTH: ROSEMEAD LOCATION #: 1
EAST & WEST: LAS TUNAS CONTROL: SIGNAL
•
N
rW E
5
LANES'
N0'RTHBOUND
PWNEEAU
NL NT I NR
2 2I 0
SB
2
SOUTHBOUND
PAISEP E
ET
2
EASTBOUND
LAS TUNAS
WESTBOUND
LAS TUNAS
SR
0
EL
1
ET , ER
3 1
WL 1 WT
1 3
WR
1
TOTAL
5:30 AM --
5:45 AM
- .. -
- - -
- -
-
- --
- - -
- -
- -
-- _._....
1
1-- -
0
6:40 AM ---
---__
_ __
_._.
- �
--
- --
- -
{ _. _ __ .._
-- -_-
I
�
--
0
-_----
0
-
6:15 AM
E
a
6:30 AM
i
1
0
-- 7:00 AM
21 ;
166
22 -
-49
--152
- 4
18
35
1 19
32
' 193
22
733
7:15 AM
36 ' 177
27
50
153
5
28
34
I 13
33
211
1'
11
778
- 7:30 AM
7:45:45 AM
40- I_ 202
52 k 176
23 -
39
75
67
155 I
5
-- 34 _
34
-. 64
79
- 21- -
25
25
19
309
1 238
16
9
- 969
165
13
916
8:00 AM
_ 7,3
75 ;
68
r 214 _
._...-
216
175
41
---_.._...,
48
43
48
_.
52
52
-
168
-
180
132
14
11
7
49
-
36
31
- 153
127--
94
40 -_.-
I 38
l 22
42
45
35
;. 308
347
305
29 _
45
19
1 179 _
1 220
983
8_15 AM
8:30 AM
.-_8:45 AM
9:00 AM
65
1
179
!
33 -
74
-
-
130
11
34
90
- -
* 30 -
�
27
_
i 203___
,
i
14 -
.--------
- 690
--- --- -
0
9:15AM
9:30 AM _
---------
9:45 AM
----
-
-
-�
---
---�-.-.._t
----
�...---
e-
0 -
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
i
i
0
VOLUMES
APPROACH %
APP/DEPART
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES
APPROACH %
PEAK HR FACTOR
430 1,505
19% 68% 12% 26%
276 467
1,235
70% 4%
70
208
23% 59% 18%
10% 83%
7%
2,211 / 1,934
7:45 AM
268 781 171
22% 64% 14%
0.900
1,772 / 1,701
219 645 45
24% 71% 5%
0.928
1,148 / 1,419
150 453 125
21% 62% 17%
0.752
728
2,537
/ 2,614
141 1,198 102
10% 83% 7%
0.824
0
4,298
0.881
09
911
843
1,441
I
1,511 ,
0
-..
- 2:30 PM
2:45 PM -- MIMI
---.._._.
0
0 -
- 0 -
_
3:00 PM
-
---- - - -
- --�-
---
-
- -
3:15 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
_
- 55 I
__
210
211
_ _ _
39^ 53
149
201,E
219 '
-- .
41 ^ 61-__A 147
23
0�
1 073 -
_
4:00 PM
26 65
36 67
^4:15
PM
39 1
25 70
174
64 51 138
22
1,116
4:30 PM
40 i 193
183
28 74
213
230
_30 57 -
24 48
215 50 49
218 45 48
141
144
10
7
1100
1 105
4:45 PM
48
30 80
5:00 PM
40
215
16 84
192
34 49
256 58 65
162
20
1 191
5:15 PM
43
219
6 78
224
203--
29
- 37
248
54 70
148
1 199
5:30 PM
47
207
14 64
251
60 47
151
1 151
5:45 PM
44 210 10 61
212
35 62
245
55 61
150
11 1 156
0
El 0
0
615 PM
=IMMO
.
6:30 PM
-���� ����
6:45 PM
=
=0
7:00 PM
0
7:15 PM
0
VOLUMES
APPROACH %
APP/DEPART
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES
APPROACH %
PEAK HR FACTOR
356
16% 76% B%
1,648
168
564 1,597
23% 66%
251
10%
17% 67% 15%
26% 68% 6%
2,172 / 2,239
5:00 PM
174 851 46
16% 79% 4%
0.988
2,412 / 2,479 ,
287 831 135
23% 66% 11%
0.946
2,759
/ 2,585
242 1,000 227
16% 68% 15%
0.979
1,469 / 1,333 _
1,748
/
1,788
243 611 50
27% 68% 6%
0.915
904 920
0
4,697
0.979
1,253 / 1,301
0
APP DEPART
1,071 / 1,143
ATTACHMENT D
Study Intersection Total Volume Calculations
STUDY INTERSECTION TOTAL TR AFFIC VOLU ME CALCULATIONS (SEPTEMBER 2005 - vs- 2009/2011 DATA)
NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR
1366 55 88 1138 56 50 159 52 79 250 49
1206 100 133 1316 55 41 261 48 60 150 47
83 929 52 49 162 48 79 222 58
Ave 147 1326 53 68 249 52 64 174 56
11 1305 7 3 0 5 0 1 4
0 48
Blvd/
Intersection
1
Ros emead
Longden
2
Ro se mea d Blvd/
Elm Ave
3
Rosemead Blvd/
Las Tunas Dr
4
Rosemead Blvd/
Bro adway
5
Muscatel Ave/
Las Tunas Or
6
Sultana Ave/
Las Tunas Dr
7
Encinita/
Las Tu nas Dr
TIME
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
YEAR
2005
2009
2005
2009
2005
Jun -09
Sep -09
2011
2005
NL
70
67
30
58
12
25
9
15
333
294
267
260
260
294
268
174
276
176
140
206
160
40
196
40
1109
1183
1669
1494
1160
1406
1177
1014
888
960
957
789
781
851
1368
1196
1103
1225
2009
2005
2009
2005
2009
2005
18
17
33
29
72
76
66
53
85
66
91
74
28
7
22
14
63
61
153
87
59
80
4
11
1
1
85
155
88
131
55
134
171
46
63
74
70
101
89
69
33
45
40
2009
38
31
52
57
63
74
70
49
1
2
132
243
146
262
146
214
219
287
98
192
85
120
65
65
45
74
5
16
7
3
16
21
24
29
1569
1105
1399
1011
1267
808
1123
800
1113
645
831
1159
1448
874
1323
79
96
43
59
14
16
17
9
74
91
118
77
19
16
32
167
95
162
129
131
125
45
135
68
93
47
85
94
64
97
91
40
17
39
18
51
35
40
31
1
0
1
341
382
147
326
169
299
150
242
80
74
61
78
41
84
97
87
13
32
5
25 1304 58
14
22
6
10
0 16
0 55
580 135
1041 207
446 73
986 222
447 90
972 181
453 125
1000 227
255 248
425 147
225 142
452 129
632 197
1567 37
569 44
1434 41
752 6
1416 50
644 26
839
1534
619
1249
30
57
28
47
0
0
0
164
228
138
204
167
186
141
243
119
55
94
76
54
63
25
47
65
39
34
47
40
52
57
40
0
0
0
1097
630
1022
719
1018
565
1198
611
432
291
253
266
1208
923
1394
972
1370
990
1228
1016
1183
979
1119
956
11
3
2
167
129
142
140
141
93
102
50
121
137
103
81
26
100
51
132
8
19
3
7
21
10
12
10
TOT AL
3412
3484
2879
3510
3021
3227
2311
2913
5389
5685
4327
5462
4381
4965
4298
4697
4287
4308
3197
4142
2730
3174
2685
3096
2359
2657
2089
2582
2460
3001
2316
2659
)