HomeMy Public PortalAbout8AAGENDA
ITEM 8. A.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 5, 2011
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Jose E. Pulido, City Manager r�
By: Joseph M. Lambert, Community Development Manager
SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 11-944: A
ZONE CHANGE FROM MUZ (MIXED -USE) TO C-2 (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL); AND CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SHOPPING CENTER 75,000 SQUARE
FOOT COMMERCIAL RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER CALLED THE
GATEWAY.
RECOMMENDATION:
a) Waive further reading and adopt Ordinance Number 11-944 by title only;
b) Adopt Resolution No. 11-4735 for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 11-
1778); and
d) Adopt Resolution No. 11-4736 to adopt a Subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the proposed project.
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.
2. On March 5, 2011, the City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the Zone
Change, Conditional Use Permit, and draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration and introduced the draft Ordinance 11-944 for first reading. At this time,
Ordinance No. 11-944 is presented for second reading and adoption by the City
Council. Also, Resolution No. 11-4735 is presented for approval of a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP 11-1778) and Resolution No. 11-4736 is presented to adopt a
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project.
City Council
April 5, 2011
Page 2
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
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.
ANALYSIS:
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.
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.
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.
City Council
April 5, 2011
Page 3
At this time, staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 11-944
approving a Zone Change (ZC 09-1741). Staff recommends that the City Council adopt
Resolution No. 11-4735 to approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 11-1778) and adopt
Resolution No. 11-4736 to adopt a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
proposed project.
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.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. 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. Reduced Project Plans
ENCLOSURE:
Notice of Intent, Draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study
and Appendices thereto.
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 5'h 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 51" 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 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
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. 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.
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 Attomey. (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
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.
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 applicant/permittee 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 5th 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 5th 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 and/or 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 3 of 3
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 511' day of April 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember-
NOES: Councilmember-
ABSENT: Councilmember-
ABSTAIN: Councilmember-
City Clerk
NOTE: Prelbnbtmy. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
The in dmnutbn ,s conce ptual and subje ct to adjustments pe nding further
mirk:dim a nd Clem, Te na nt. and Gove rnmental Agency appro vals
140 wrmrdiee a guarantees of any hind are gi ven or ,mplietl.
HTH Architects, LLP - Copyright 2011 11. 350.06
The Gateway
A Project for TCD Enterprises Inc
Temple City, California
Aerial Perspecti ve
February 14, 2011
HTH
Archit ects
2
o is m . ra u -fl Ila + l
NO TE Preirnbary. NOT FOR CO NSTRUCTION.
Thu &dominion ia c onceptual and subje ct to adjustments pending further
varn:al on sod Client, Ten ant. and GovemmentarAgenc y approvals
No Wa rranties or guarantees p1 any kind are groen or implied
HTH Architects, LLP - Copyright 2011 11. 350,06
The Gatewa y
A Project for TCD Enterprises Inc
Temple City, C alifornia
Graphic Site Plan
Febr uary 14, 2011
HTH
Ar chitects
J
j)
fv f KO
A F p L ` � L
'ti
C‘ ' 1-b I 1
1 I i {� I ,I ...
I . ar -1---7 ,y' ,
F
F
14.154.1.
3._
H 4149.
S
4.7,1404.
voa „
�ePtRDC.0s ,
rl�
Gateway Plaza Proj ect Des cription
T emple City, California
Situated at th e North-East Intersecti on of R osemead Boul evard and Las
Tunas Drive, th e Gateway Pl ata serv es as just that; an appropriat e
entr an ce into the City of Temple City with its str ong , b old and well
proportioned Mediterranean Architecture .
Th e Proje ct is mark ed by tw o r est aur ants aL the comer with a low er piece,
an elegant outd oor dini ng p ati o and lush l andsc aping; thus making a nice
urban appr oa ch to Roseme ad with ils civic edge to the sidewalk white
dealing with limited vehicul ar access and g ood B ow thro ugh the site. Tw o
buildings are designed with a second st ory offi ce which enhances the
villag e feel wilh varying heights and roof lines. Use of landscape and
building materials add elegance to the projecl and a s ense of arrival
OPTION 'H-1' - OVERALL SUMMARY
SPACE
L
SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIRED
PARKING
BLDG 'A'
REGIONAL SUPERMARKET:
335,000 SF
BLDG 'A' -RETAIL:
1 BLDG 'B' -RETAIL:
32,000 SF
311,700 SF
140 SP ACES
(4 ran ism SP)
11 SPACES
47 SPACES
(4 PER 1D00 SF)
BLDG 'A' - OFFICE (2nd Floor]:
BLDG "Fr- OFFICE (2 nd Floor):
±2,000 SF
311 ,700 SF
11 SP ACES
47 SP ACES
(4 PER 10005F)
' BLDG' C' - RESTAURANT: 134.500 SF
BLDG 'D ' - RESTAURANT: 36,500 5F
TOTAL GROSS SF: 275,000 SF
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED:
: TOTAL SURFACE PARKING PROPOSED:
TOTAL UNDERGROUND PARKING PROPOSED:
TOTAL PARKING PROPOSED:
18 SPACES
26 SPACES
(4 PER 1000 SF)
300 SPACES
129 SPACES
202 SPACES
331 SPACES
A-1
NO TE: Preliminary. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION .
The In fo rmation b conceptu al and subject to adjustments pending further
verification and C aere, Tena nt, a nd Go ve rn mental Age ncy a pprovals
No wmandaa or pwrurtaas of any kind are given or Implied.
H H Architect% LLP Copyright 2011 HTH 11.350.05
The Gateway
A Project for TCD Enterprises Inc
Temple City, California
C onceptual Site Plan
February 14, 2011
HTH
Architee{s
UND ERGR OUND PARKING SUM MARY:
TOTAL UNDERGROUND PARKING PROVIDED: 202 SPACES
SEALE r-ar
�roMOSS ty
SECOND FLOOR SUMMARY
OFFICE (2nd Floor)! ±11,700 SF
(4 FEA 146057)
OFFICE (2nd Fl oor): ±2M00 SF
(4 PER 10005F)
A-2
NOTE: Prdlmlrury . NO T FOR C ONSTRUCTION.
The Informatio n Is conceptua l end su bject to adjustments pending furthe r
vmfM1cstlon an d Crime. renal, erld Go ve rnme ntal Agenc y a ppro vals .
No warneles or guarantees of any kind are ghten or Implied.
NTH Architects, LLP Copyright 2011 HT H 11.350.66
The Gateway
A Project for TCD Enterprises Inc
Temple City, C alifornia
Conceptual Site Plan
February 14, 2011
BLDG 'A' - SOUTH ELEVATION
Auc. 3p r - ,._e.
BLDG 'A' - NORTH ELEVATION
WALE s/37 ,'-e'
BLDG A' - WEST ELEVA TION
KALE- 3/Jr - 1 -0
BLDG 'A' - EAST ELEVATION
0
A-3
NOTE Prelimina ry NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIO N
Tla t In brn ativt la conce ptu al and augad In adJuslme nts pendin g runne r
v arilio tlion and Man i. Tenant an d Gove mmentaIA eney approva ls
No warranties agtmrsnlaas arem Idnd ars Own er,rnpried.
HMI Architects, LLP - Copyright 2011 11. 350. 06
The Gateway
A Project for TCD Enterprises Inc
Temple City, California
Schematic Elev ations
February 14, 2011
'2_,- Fi .
BLDG B' - SOUTH ELEVATION
MU' 7/. 72 - r -o'
mut t Iw
sr -o.
r
• Swam n ammae¢1 M • •mHsm mote
53 -fl
BLDG 'B' - NORTH ELEVATION
iCM .0 7/72' . 1
15-'3"
�J
11611.11 1l'
-47 -a'
,
BLDG 'B' - WEST ELEVATION
5 .776,
�21
The Gatewa y
A Project for TCD Enterprises Inc
A-4
NOTE: Pmtmhle,y. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIO N.
The Intonsetlon is Co nc eptua l' an d subfoc t to adjus tments pending fu rther
vsdlfulion sod Cflen t. Te nant. e nd Gove rnmental Age ncy a pprovals
No warranties or guarantees of any kind am given or implied.
HTH Arch itec ts, LLP - Copyright 2011 11.350.06
Temple City, Califor nia
Schematic Elevations
February 14, 2011
HTH
Architects
•rdrCl wgL, . C14 ere; re PM P!
(M.11)- k
BLDG 'O' - SOUTH ELEVATION
sod: 7132- - +'-p-
BLDG C - EAST ELEVATION
SC L( 1172" - -o'
BLDG 'C - WEST ELEVATION
zar c 3[32'
. -r
BLDG 'D' - SOUTH ELEVATION
S'A:F. .1.'37"
BLDG 'D' - NORTH ELEVATIO N
O
sc &k 7/72-
BLDG 'C - NORTH ELE VATI ON
BLDG 'D' - WEST EL EV ATION
SALE: 3/.7f - -c .
A-5
NOTE Pnelkrine ry NOT FOR CO NSTRUCTION.
The information is conceptual and subject to adjustme nts pending fwther
rerillca llmt and CQen l, Tenant. and Gove rnmen ta l Agency approv ers.
No wa rmness or yn inenMe of er ly kind e re Oen or rmp{led.
HTH Arc hltects, LLP - Copyright 2011 11. 350.06
The Gateway
A Project for TCD Enterprises Inc
Temple City, California
Schematic Elevations
February 14, 2011
HTH
Architects
9701 LAS TUNAS DRIVE • TEMPLE CITY • CALIFORNIA 91760.2249 • (6261 295-2171
From: City of Temple City
Community Development Department
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Notice is hereby given that a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study have been
completed for the following project:
• Background: in 2006, the City of Temple City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Piazza Las
Tunas Project (SCH No. 2006031046). This mixed use project involved a mix of residential and commercial
land uses on the project site as follows: 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, and an 6,000 square foot
Banquet Hall. The 2006 City approval also included a Zone Change (Zone Change 06-1651) and a related
Development Agreement.
■ 2011 Application: Zone Change 09-1741 & Conditional Use Permit 11-1778 - A request for a zone change
and conditional use permit to construct a 75,000 square foot commercial retail shopping center
called the Temple City Gateway Plaza. The mix of land uses has changed slightly from the 2006 -
approved project, and the proposed square footage has been reduced to a total of 75,000 square feet and
includes approximately: 49,500 square feet of retail space, 14,500 square feet of office space, and 11,000
square feel of restaurant uses. A total of 331 parking spaces will be provided in both surface and underground
parking.
The Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were completed in accordance with the State
Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. The initial Study was undertaken for the
purpose of deciding whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of the
initial Study, a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact has been prepared stating
that the contemplated proposed development will not have any new significant effects on the environment beyond
those previously identified in the 2006 Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study because of mitigation
measures or revisions to the project that have been made or have been agreed upon by the project proponent.
The Initial Study reflects the independent judgment of the City. The project site is ! is not X on a list
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Copies of the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are on file at the City's Community
Development Department office, located at 9701 Las Tunas Drive, Temple City, California 91780 and are
available for public review. The review period for this document shall be 20 days, beginning February 22,
2011. Comments of all Responsible Agencies are also requested.
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 at 7:30 p.m., the Temple City Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing
to consider the project and related Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. Comments may be made in
writing or verbally at the public hearing before the Planning Commission, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 22,
2011. Any person wishing to comment on this matter must submit such comments, in writing, to the City by this
time and date. Subsequent to Planning Commission review and recommendation, the proposed project and
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration will be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Temple City. It is
anticipated that this project will be considered at a noticed Public Hearing by the City Council on March 15, 2011.
If the City Council, as the Lead Agency, finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment,
it may adopt the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. This means that the project may be considered
without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
Joseph M. Lambert, Community Development Manager
Date Received for Filing
By Los Angeles County;
(County Clerk Stamp Here)
t.
WOW 11'
' ( .° tail0 .
lrIs:tillI Chi
1I c 1
The Gateway 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
Con tacfs:
Ms. Collette Morse, AICP
Mr. Achilles Malisos
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
JN 10-106860
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Page
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
Final.. Adopted March 15, 2011
Table of Contents
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
APPENDICES
A Greenhouse Gas Emissions
B Traffic Memorandum
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
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 The Gateway Project
(Proposed Project) Subterranean and Second Floor 2-3
Final —Adopted March 15, 2011
li Table of Contents
The Gateway 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
comer 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 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 EIR 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 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;
(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 EIR 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 EIR or negative declaration;
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
1-1 Introduction
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
(8) 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 The Gateway Project) is subject
to CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Guidelines. As such, the City of Temple City
has determined that a Subsequent MND is required for the proposed changes to the project.
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 IS/MND. 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 1S/MND (SCH No.
2006031046), for consideration prior to taking action to approve the revised site plan.
Final -- Adopted March 15, 2011
1-2 Introduction
The Gateway 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 Project. A description of the current The
Gateway 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
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
2-1 Description of Project Revisions
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
The IS/MND 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 and/or compliance
with applicable standards, adopted policies, and/or development standards prescribed in the
Temple City Municipal Code.
The Draft 1S/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 lS/MND for the Piazza Las Tunas project. The City Council's
adoption of the ISIMND 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 Compliance, the proposed changes to the Piazza Las
Tunas project has necessitated preparation of this Subsequent IS/MND for The Gateway
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 The Gateway 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 The Gateway 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 The Gateway
Project, with associated parking improvements, on an approximately 3.6 -acre site (156,925
square feet).
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
2-2 Description of Project Revisions
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 24 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
The Gateway Project (Proposed Project)
2006 -Approved Project
(Plaza La Tunas Protect)
!Proposed Project
(The Gateway Project)
Use
DU/SF
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
75,00D 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
Elm 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 Elm
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.
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
2-3 Description of Project Revisions
The Gateway 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
Final —Adopted March 15. 2011
2-4 Description of Project Revisions
Pyramid
Lake
Lake
Pins
Fillmore Pin,
Moorpark
VENTURA
COUNTY
Simi
Valley
Caste's
Casrarc
Lake
KERN
COUNTY
Lancaster
Newhall / LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
Santa
Clerila
Chatsworth
Woodlend
Z} Hills
Sante
Monica
Pacoima
Van
Nuys
Sherman
Deks
Burbank
5 Glendale
Beverly Hollywood
Hills
Culver
Marine Del Roy
Plays Dei iiey
El Segundo
Menhstlen Inch
cuo44,
Redonda Beech
Inglewood
Hawthorne
Torrance
Los
Angeles
Alhambra
Monterey
Perk
Monrovi
Paudena Arcadia
Temple
Clty
West
Covina
Cleremonl
San
Dlmae
Pomona !
Pico
11 I Isere Whittler La Hahn
South Heights
Gele Downey j Brea
Compton
Carson
Lekewood
irada
Fullerton
Anaheim
Garden
Pe z2 Grove
Verdes
Estates
San
Pedro
Lan
hocl
Hunlinglon
Beach
Coate
Mese
1lewport
high
RPir
CON13U LTIND 1 9!15711 JNlO-106880.17284 MAS
5 10
APPROXIMATE
ORANGE
COUNTY
Tustin
Irvine
Upland
Chino
THE GATEWAY PROJECT • SUBSEQUENT MND
Lake
Forest
Regional Location
Exhibit 1
' ,. , - -__.,Ti �. �' '-. -_r_- 3 - Jed V.
-
'try r - - ., ...,3= - It ;1-1.7
a .i.r r y.
j�. �r .A, •Cr, - Tom= te► i 1 7i iT . '�) '� 4 — : p
I : vs. ' � v ., .�, 9 �
' - �C -� I rim xt r mJl {1, '1 I. ,C
' ' 1� -- -;^s'tj,� =L ,,7+ �y y
i wL"�a n .I X11- ,. ` — - I.
a` 'rc. Y
iai
Source: HTH Architects, Conceptual Site Plan, 2!11!11.
■ ■ ■
100'
APPRUXtMA1F
THE GATEWAY PROJECT • SUBSEQUENT MND
Revised Site Plan
CONSULTING 311YtIJN10.10666617284 IMS
Exhibit 3
ELM AVENUE
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
ELM AVENUE
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
LINE OF ROOF
ABOVE. TYV
MYDA
AVENUE
MYDA ~
AVENUE
SECOND FLOOR SUMMARY
Office (2nd Floor): ± 11,700 sf
(4 per 1000 st)
Office (2nd Floor): ± 2,800 sf
(4 per 1000 sf)
UNDERGROUND PARKING SUMMARY
Total Underground Parking Provided: 202 Spaces
Source: HTH Architects, Conceptual Site Plan, 2/11111.
RElf APFRDXbA15
CONSULTING 315111 JN 10.106660.17261 MAS
] 100
THE GATEWAY PROJECT • SUBSEQUENT MN'
Revised Site Plark
Subterranean and Second Floor
Exhibit 4
The Gateway 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
Transportation/Traffic
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
• TransportationfTraffic
• 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.
Final —Adopted March 15, 2011
3-1 Initial Study Checklist
The Gateway 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 initial 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.
Final —Adopted March 15, 2011
3-2 Initial Study Checklist
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Lase Than
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 to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information complied by the California
Department of Forestry and Rre Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project
and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the 'act:
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?
X
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
X
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)).
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526).
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(9))?
X
d. Result 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 criteria established by the applicable air quaMy management or air pollution control c strict may be
relied upon fo make the fancying determinations. Would the prgieck
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?
X
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
3-3
Initial Study Checklist
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Leas Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Loss Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
X
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 slate habitat
conservation plan?
Y
X
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?
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 geobgic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
_
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, induding the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priob 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.
}C
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
3-4
Initial Study Checklist
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Lass Than
Significant
impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
LeuThan
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?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to fife or 'ro. - rt ?
X
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or altemative waste wcter disposal systems .
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste `
water?
T. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: wouidmeproject.
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a signs scant 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; woufdrheprojecr:
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
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the pubic 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 resutt in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
X
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
3-5
Initial Study Checklist
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Potantfally
Significant
Impact
Leas Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less That
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
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 herrn xed with wildlands?
X
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. would the p,r ecr:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
X
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)?
r
X
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water qualify?
X
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?
X
h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
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?
X
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Woufdthe profecf:
a. Physically divide an established community?
X
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?
X
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
3-6
Initial Study Checklist
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
impact
Lees Then
Significant
Impact With
mitigation
incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
_
No
Impact
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X
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?
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 fhe prgecl result In:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
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?
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?
1. 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 thepntjecr:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, ether
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?
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 govemmental facx1lties, need for new or physically
altered govemmental 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:
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
3-7
Initial Study Checklist
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Leas Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1) Fire protection?
X
2) Police protection?
X
3) Schools?
X
4) Parks?
X
5) Other public facilities?
X
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?
X
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?
X
16. TRANSPORTATION!TRAFF IC. Would Ihe 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?
X
X
x
X
X
X
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?
X
X
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
3-8 Initial Study Checklist
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Leas Than
Significant
impact With
M kigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
X
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
comm itin ents?
X
f, Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
X
g. Comply with federal, state, 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?
X
b. Does the project have rripacts 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
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
3-9 Initial Study Checklist
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
3-10 Initial Study Checklist
The Gateway 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 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 Project 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, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
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 aestheticilight 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.
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
41 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway 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 saF14449-stfwetuce north wall of Building A and the IZloch
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.
afeeidentfe44 e -
B. Install and maintain a "green screen" on andLor vine pockets adjacent to the
block wall on the nosth.eriv property line, The landscaping shall be planted
with evergreen vines or similar landscaping trained to grow up the wall
. Install and maintain vines or similar vertical landscaping
at the base of the nth wall of Building A afiel eoithin tho roquirod 20 foot
eetiieek. 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 parking-s eture north wall and Building A and the
block wall adjacent to the northerly prope y line shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Community Director prior to issuance of building permits on the project
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 Government
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
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
4-2 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway 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.
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
4-3 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway 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 reso urces.
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.
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
4-4 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway 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 archaeologicaVpaleontological 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 archaeologicaVpaleontological resources and
human remains. No new significant impacts involving archaeologicaVpaleontological 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?
Final —Adopted March 15, 2011
4-5 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway 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 MTCO2eglyear 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
Final —Adopted March 15, 2011
4-6 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
proposed project would be consistent with the goals of Califomia 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 MTCO2eglyear. 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 to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wlldland
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 severity of
previously identified impacts would not increase as a result of the proposed project revisions.
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
4-7 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway 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 pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
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.
Final —Adopted March 15, 2011
4-8 Environmental Analysts
The Gateway 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.
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
4-9 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway 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 groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
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
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011,
4-10 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway 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 ISIMND 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 NOl-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.
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
4-11 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway 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 26 -foot -high block wall shall be erected along the north property line, extending
from the northeast comer of the project site west
904:11341019-R84401 along the property line past towards 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
The City will
coordinate the design of the wall with the project developer.
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.
Final —Adopted March 15, 2011
4-12 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway 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)
4)
5)
Schools?
Parks?
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 severity of previously identified
impacts would decrease as a result of the proposed project revisions.
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
4-13 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway 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 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 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 IS/MND, 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 Tess daily trips, which includes 64 net
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
4-14 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway 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
Accgss to delivery truck loading area, and the
subterranean reside iie4 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 ISIMND).
TRA-2 _Larne truck_ circulation at site will enter at Sultana Avenue Driveway_ back into
loading dock. and exit to Rosemead Boulevard via ElmAvenue.
TRA-3 Sultana Avenue strioing 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,
TRA-4 The Las Tunes Drive out edge adiacent the project will be coordina.tesi 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 stripin Jan on
Las Tunas Drive in the project vicinity for review and approval by City Transportation
Department staff
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
4-15 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
the-egreenont
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 sewed 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?
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
4-16 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway 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
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
4-17 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway 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 1S/MND to provide clarification
regarding proposed changes outlined above and to comply with CEQA Guidelines Section
15162.
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
4-18 Environmental Analysis
The Gateway 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 por etrueturo 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 Buildlrlo A.
a-reeidentiol f090d0.
13. Install and maintain a "green screen" on and/or vine pockets adiacent to the
block wall on the northerly property line. The landscaping shall be planted
with evergreen vines or similar landscalag trained to grow up the wall.
SE. install and maintain vines o form of thorny or similar vertical landscaping
at the base of the north wall of Building A and within tho roquirod 20 foot
eetibae1. 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 pa ing-struature north wall and Building A and the
block wall adjacent to the northerly property sine 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.
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
5-1 Inventory of Mitigation Measures
The Gateway 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 ;foot -high block wall shall be erected along the north property line, extending
from the northeast corner of the project site west
eiRietkife-Re4444 along the property line past Whsrafel.e 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.
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
5-2 inventory of Mitigation Measures
NOI-7 Signs shall be posted at all parking structure exits cautioning drivers to maintain
quiet and respect neighbors as they leave the site.
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
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
TRA-1 Poridng ctructuro acoocc, Access to delivery truck loading area, and the
subterranean fesideotiol parking will be provided via EIm Avenue. Elm Avenue will
be striped to provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane. The EIm 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
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
5-3 inventory of Mitigation Measures
The Gateway 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).
TRA-2 Large i�ck circiilation at site will enter at Sultana Avenue Driveway_,_ a k i n
Joading dock. and exit to Rosemead Boulevard via ElmAvenue.
TRA-9 SuHana Avenue etri nim will r.main mat hlna xktlno mMi�innc C;n, efwff iaii
►ject to determine if turn restrictions re red ex1ting the site at the Sultana
Avenue Driveway,
TRA-4 The Las Tunas Drive curb edge adiacent the 2ject will be coordinated wish City
Transportation Departmentstaff to ensure accommodation of westbaund vehicle
Janes. a bus stop. and a dedicated right -turn lane at the Rosemead Boulevard/Las
Tunas Drive intersection. Applicant will prepare roadway signing and strip ng plan on
)_as Tunas Drive in the project vicinity for review and approval by City Transportation
Department staff,
the eement.
Final — Adopted March 15, 2011
5-4 Inventory of Mitigation Measures
The Gateway 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 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.
Irrpact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame!
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Aesthetics
To address the massing issue of
the parking structure, design
features have been incorporated
into the project thal include
setting the wall back 20 feel from
the properly line and utilizing
extensive landscaping to break
up the mass and guard against
graffiti. Mitigation measure AES-
1 is required to ensure
implementation of design
treatments necessary to avoid
impact.
AES-1
To mitigate the adverse aesthetic impact on
residences immediately north of the project site
aeated by the -ellaeture north wal l of Ruilr1inj].
Monitoring will occur
prior b issuance of
a building permit
C Tem
ple
Te iy
Community
Development
Director
A and the block wall adjacent 10 the northerly property
line, the applicant/developer will be required b pursue
one or more of the following options, al the direction of
the City.
A. Design and construct a series of appropriately
scaled arches That cover the length of the nath City
wall of A4iilriinp A.
fage4er
r eFi eeeeRr
the•well-ee-140- MOOR,
A Mstall and maintain a 'green screen' on and/or
vine pockets adjacent In the hlnr•.k wall nn the
Final —Adopted March 15, 2011
6-1
MMRP
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
northerly property line. The landscaping shall he
itlantert with evergreen vines nr similar
landscaping trained h grow up the wall,
C6. Install and maintain or
similar vertical landscaping al the base of the
acdh wall of Building A
20 feat cootcotionok The landscaping shall be of a
variety that discourages trespass and access b
the wall, and that is attractive and evergreen.
The design and treatment of the nail
wall and Rnilding A and the Mock wall adjacent to the
northerly prnperly line shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Community Director prior b issuance of
htiilding permits on the project
Air Quality
NOx emissions associated with
building construction will exceed
the SCAQMD threshold without
the implementation of mitigation.
A1R-1 For he demolition phase of construction, the
applicantlpermitlee 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
applicant/permittee shall use cooled exhaust gas
recirculation on both on -and off -road diesel equipment
b reduce NOx emissions.
Verification will
occur prior to and
during construction.
Monibring will occur
during construction.
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 wilt
occur prior b
construction.
Monitoring will occur
during construction.
Temple City
Planning
Department
The following mitigation measure
is imposed on the project to
ensure compliance with
SCAQMD regulations and odor
control.
AIR -4 All restaurant owners and/or operators shall be required
b install emissions and odor control devices required by
the South CoastAir Quality Management District and as
applicable, Los Angeles County Health Department
regulations. Such systems shall be installed and
operable prior b he issuance of occupancy permits for
any such restaurant
Monitoring will occur
during construction
and be confirmed
before final sign off
on the building
permit
Monitoring will occur
whenever a change
in restaurant owners
and/or operators
occurs.
Temple City
Planning
Department
Geology and Soils
The project will require
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 and will require
sal erosion control.
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 b, covering
of the graded area or piled soil with straw or straw
matting, and use of water for dust control.
Monibring will occur
during construction.
Temple City Public
Works Department
Final —Adopted March 15, 2011
6-2
MMRP
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Noise
The adjacent residential lots will
be affected by short-term
construction noise when grading
occurs. Construction noise is a
potential impact on the adjacent
residential structures.
N01-1
NOI-2
NOI-3
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.
All heavy construction equipment and all stationary
rs shall have
noise sources such as diesel generators
manufacturer -installed mufflers.
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 dearly 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.
Monitoring will occur
during construction.
Temple City
Planning
Department
The adjacent residential lots will
be affected by short-lerm
construction noise when grading
occurs and by long -tern
operatons of the mixed use
development Construction and
operational noise is a potential
impact on the adjacent
residential structures.
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
and operations.
Temple City
Planning
Department
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
Monitoring will occur
during 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-6
A ;fool -high block wall shall be erected along the
north property line, extending from the northeast
Monitoring will occur
during operations.
Temple City
Planning
Department
corner of the protect site west oar t-eke-ef-lga
pakopit—etroolure—aor#h along the properly line past
Eewar-tie 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.
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-7
Signs shall be posted al all parking structure exits
cautioning drivers to maintain quiet and respect
neighbors as they leave the site.
Monitoring will occur
during operations.
Temple City
Planning
Department
The adjacent residential lots will
be affected by long-lerm
operations of the mixed -use
development Operational noise
is a potential impact on the
adjacent residenliai structures.
NOI-8
As part of the conditions Lif
at rlllral, the City shall reserve the right to limit he
Monitoring wilt occur
during operations.
,i_;,...„__.,,,,___on odour
Temple City
Department
hours of operation of h eel--faeilitee and
restaurants as a means of reducing on -site noise in
response to any prolonged, documentable evidence of
noise conflicts.
ehall4freeRei Planning
s.
Final —Adopted March 15, 2011
6-3
MMRP
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
TransportatlonlTraffic
As design features of the project
mitigation measures TRA-1
through TRA-1 will ensure the
project impact al the
intersections of Sultana
AvenuelLas Tunas Drive and
Elm Avenue/Rosemead
Boulevard will be reduced.
TRA-1 delivery truck
loading area, and the subterranean reeider e1 parking
will be provided via Elm Avenue, Elm Avenue will be
striped to provide one inbound lane and one outbound
lane. The Elm Avenue al 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 in ensure
the intended ingress and egress operations. Also, a
35 -fool 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
2005 ISAMNrt)
TRA-9 Large truck (inflation al site will enter at Sultana
Avenue Driveway, hack Into loading dock and exit lo
Rosemead Boulevard via Flm Avenue
TRA.3 Sultana Avenue striping will remain matching exisjyq
maditions City staff will monitor Rntentiai mmmprriat
traffic•, intrusion ink-) neinhhnrhnnds adjacent In the
prniecl lo determine if him restrictions are required
exiling the sit at the Sultana Aveniie Driveway
TRA-4 The Lac Tunas Drive otrh edge adjareni the project
will be coordinated with City Transpnrtalion
Department staff In ensure accommodation of
westbound w hirle lanes abt,s slnp and a dedicated
ht -turn lane at the Rracpmead BoulevardILas TuriM
ftjve intersection Applicant will prepare roadway
prrbenl vicinity for review and approval by City
Transportation Department staff
itelead=petkiciepLteedio-ielot4wifii-ite-poevielett-a4
Verifica Goo wil I
occur prior b
cunstruclon.
Monitoring will occur
during construction.
Temple City Public
Works Department
and Planning
Department
Final —Adopted March 15, 2011
6-4
MMRP
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
Modes —la -4k oelititiewnd direction a Aare,
Final - Adopted March 15, 2011
6-5 MMRP
The Gateway Project
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.
Final —Adopted March 15, 2011
6-6 MMRP
Appendix A
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
pi M rs o pat
•50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 111 70 3.5
PBF
• •
CONSULTING
PLANNING • bEBION ■ 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, INCE, REA
Director of Technical Studies
949.855.3612
February 10, 2011
JN 10-106860
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
■ ■ ■
CPNBULTIN®
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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
■ ■ ■
CONBULTIN®
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
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
E ■ ■ ■
CONBUlTING
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
MTCOzeq 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
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
■ . .
c0P1BULTIP1
This page intentionally left blank.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis iv February 10, 2011
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
■ ■ . ■
CONSULTING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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 comer 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 MTCOzeq/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 MTCOzeq/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
■ ■ ■
CDN9IJLTINCI
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
This page intentionally left blank.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 2 February 10, 2011
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
■ ■ ■
CONBULTING
1.0 INTRODUCTION
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 StudylMitigated 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
— Gorman
Moorpark
Thousand
Oaks
Wallah
Village
Malibu
4
1
Pyramid
Lake
Lake
Pee
VENTURA
COUNTY
Castaic
Lake
KE N
COUNTY
Newhall
Sarda
Media
Sylmar
Chatsworth
Palmdale
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
Pacoima
Burbank
5. Glandsle
. Agoura i Is Woodland
Hills
Calabasas
Sherman
Oaks
Bandy Hollywood
Hills
Santa
Monica
Martha Be Ray
PleyaUel Ray
El Segundo
Menh !Ian Beath
Culver Los
City Angeles
Inglewood
Redondo Beath
Hawthorne.
Torrance
Alhambra
Moabite!
Park
Pico
Ives
South
Gate Downey
Campton
Carson
Lakewood
Palos
Verdes a "
Estate' ~ 1 Long
San
Pedro r— Reach
Monrovia
Pasadena Arcadia
Tempt
CIIy
Well
Covina
Whiffler La Habra
Halghls
a
Trade
Fullerton
Anaheim
Garden
Grove
Huntlogion
Beach
Costa
Mesa
Newport
Beech
5 10 codes
APPROXIMATE
GATEWAY PLAZA PROJECT • GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
Claremont
San
Dimes
Pomona 1
•
•
Yorba
Ind.
ORANGE
COUNTY
Tunlln
Upland
Lake
Fareat
Regional Location
CONSULTING
1/91111 JN 10405116417263 MAO
Exhibit 1
I-+
Source: HTH Archilecls, Cancepival Site Plan, 2111111.
1 ■ ■
100
ITZMZT TZI
APPROXIMATE
GATEWAY PLAZA PROJECT • GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
Site Plan
CONSULTING 2114/i1JN10-108660,17204 MAC
Exhibit 3
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
u ■ ■
CGN8ULTINE
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
w ■ • •
CONBULTINCi
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
This page intentionally left blank.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 8 February 10, 2011
is ■ ■
CONSULTING
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
2.0 EXISTING SETTING
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
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 (COz) 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 clirnate (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: 1990 to 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
Sbrn solar rrwi3=-on :S
!elleCled f1p me a11nasOhere
and tar11i $ stir".aco
is 6bAt5r6-ed by.lhe.
ieP Wh:s surf LGi- 1:n d 'roar r is 11 .
Some of the iettmeid rardtllion %
shusted and re•em4tted by the
greenhouse g ss molecules. The
dime! shed ]s the weemirsg vi' the
earth sudaoe end the troposphere.
S: ' 11he ,nlrar d
recialipr passes lhteugn
the 9Cfrosphereand is
Icss1 In space
Grl9c aWns mA a : al,a
reared r ata19 es ie emitted again
.. _ and is zr;ril.. r•ted inW 1 heal i.3usin�
Who ernis_•an -1Y Iona4:av_ IInfrEIredl
radInt:un nWirrbSptle+e _
GATEWAY PLAZA PROJECT • GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
The Greenhouse Effect
CONEll ITIN0 1,11111-14 11:1141PMOIMA 1µS
Exhibit 4
A ■ ■ r
CONOULTINo
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Pro)ect
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;8
• 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 215h century;14 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 leve1.11
A Ibid.
Ibid.
5 Ibid.
' Ibid.
a Ibid.
9 California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to Governor
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature (Executive Summary), March, 2006.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 11 February 10, 2011
■ ■ •
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:32
• 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
'2 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
s It ■
C DNBULTIN131
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
increased 35 percent." 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 (CH.1. Methane is emitted from biogenic sources, incomplete combustion in
forest fires, 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 (N2O). 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 (SPs). 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
compared 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. Envirorunental Protection Agency, High GWP Gases and Climate Change, June 22, 2010.
15 ibid.
14 Ibid.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 13 February 10, 2011
w ■ ■ •
CONSULTING
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
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."
• 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.1e
• 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 03 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.
18 Ibid.
19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Class I Ozone Depleting Substances, March 7, 2006.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14 February 10, 2011
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
w ■ ■ ■
CONSULTING
3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
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, well -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
■I B r r
CONSULTING
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 Ca1/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-74-08. 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 5-20-04, 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 S-21-09. Executive Order 5-21-09, 33 percent Renewable Energy for California,
directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 16 February 10, 2011
■ w ■
CONSULTING
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
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 2006). 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 Pal/ley 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
w s IN ■
CONSULTING
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
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. 513 375 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. 513 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
Wir
CONSULTING
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
CARB SCOPING PLAN
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 CO2eg20 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
20 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CCheq) - A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse
gases based upon their global warming potential.
27 "Business as Usual" refers to emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of GHG reductions. See
http:/Iwww.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, CARE 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
■ ■ r
OONBULTIN0
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
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
w r r ■
CONSULTING'
4.0 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
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 75064.7(c)). However, to date, neither CARB nor SCAQMD have adopted
significance thresholds for GHG emissions for residential or commercial development under
CEQA.22 CARE 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 agendes 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
r ■ r
coNBULTIN9
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
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
CONBULT114113
noted in the Scoping Plan23, 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
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 23 February 10, 2011
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza PtoJect
CDN8ULTINO
This page intentionally left blank.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 24 February 10, 2011
RIPF
CONSULTING
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
5.0 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
GHG-1 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,
N20, 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
L GHGs associated with area sources and mobile sources would be 150.25 MTCO2eq/year, and
4,295.88 MTCO2eglyear, 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 Supply. 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://www.aqmd.govihb/2008/December/081231a.htm).
26 U.S. Energy Information Administration, A Look at Principal Building Activities, January 3, 2001
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/cbecs/pbawebsite/contents.htm and U.S. Energy Information
Administration, Domestic Electricity Emissions Factors 1999-2002.
22 PB&D Consultants, Piazza Las Tunas Initial Study, March 2006.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 25 February 10, 2011
■ f •
CONSULTING
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 MTCOzeq/year.
Table I
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
al
J
Nall
CHi
TEL,'
Metric
''"1"1df
Metric Metric
t tdrrairear Lar pear
M+efric Tons
01'
Metric
tortslyasr
M„ r c Tons
of CO [fl°
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS'
• 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 Cortslruction 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 Source'
150.24
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
150.25
• Mobile Source'
4,187.56
0.33
101.94
0.31
6.49
4,295.99
Total Direct Emissions?
1 4,337.80
0.33
101.95
0.31
6.49
4,446.25
Indirect Emissions
• Electricity Consumption'
786.97
0.01
2.51
0.05
1.04
790.51
• Water Supply'
26.48
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.03
26.58
Total Indirect Emissionsr
813.44
0.01
2.58
0.05
1.07
817.09
Total Project -Related Emissions
WITHOUT Reductions
5,272.05 MTCO2eq,yearr
Total Project -Related Emissions
WITH 33.3% Reductions
3,519,53 MTCO2eq/year2
Displaced Emissions'
(1,600 seat movie theater)
4,346.77
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 Construction Equipment
2. Emissions calculated using URBEMIS 2007 computer model
3. Emissions calculated using URBEMIS 2007 computer
Vehicles and Delivery Trucks.
4. Eledridty Consumption emissions calculated using demand
Emissions Factors 1999.2002, October 2007, and the
Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, revised
5. Emissions are based on energy usage factors for water
December 2010. http:Ilwww.energy,ca.govlresearchfiawlndustrylwater.html.
6. CO2 Equivalent values calculated using the U.S.
httpilwww.epa.govldeanenergy/energy-resourceslcalculator.
7. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
8. Displaced emissions ere based on vehicle and area source
Emissions Table and the URBEMIS 2007 computer model.
and the SCAOMD's CEQA Handbook.
model end EMFAC2007, Highest (Most Conservative) Emission Factors
and emissions factors from the U.S. Energy Information Administration,
California Energy Commission, Reference Appendices for the 2008
June 2009.
conveyance from the California Energy Commission, Wafer Energy
Environmental Protection Agency Website, Greenhouse Gas
html. accessed January 2011.
CO2 emissions from a 1,610 seat movie theater calculated by URBEMIS2007.
for On -Road Passenger
Domestic Electricity
Building Energy Efficiency
Use in California, accessed
Equivalencies Calculator,
Refer to Appendix A, Emissions Modetma Data, for detailed
model input/output data.
28 Ibid.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 26
February 10, 2011
w ■ ■ r
CONSULTING
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
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 MTCOieq/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 transportationand 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
■ ■ ■
CONHULTIN0
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
Table 2
Project Consistency with the Attorney General's Recommendations
R dld
q
r+t
Energy Efficiency
Incorporate green building practices and
design elements.
The proposed project would comply with the 2010 California
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 lighting. Energy efficient heatinglcooling systems,
appliances and equipment, and efficient control systems
would be installed in buildings.
Install energy efficient lighting (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-sile 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 healing during
cool seasons, minimize solar heat gam
during hot seasons, and enhance
natural ventilation. Design buildings to
lake 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 sitelbuilding 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 healers and energy efficient
heatinglventilatienlair conditioning would be installed.
Additionally, soladwind power systems are currently being
considered.
Accounted for Above
_
Install solar, wind, and geothermal
power systems and solar hot water
heaters.
Where solar systems cannot feasibly be
incorporated into the project al the
outset, build 'solar ready' structures.
Water Conservation and Efficiency
Incorporate water -reducing fealures 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 sile. A variation of 'in -pot -
drip' systems would be used. Watering methods would also 'in -pot -
be restricted as to 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
In
(reduction l 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
■ ■ •
CONSULTING'
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
Table 2 (Continued)
Project Consistency with the Attorney General's Recommendations
14sinuis
Pirojeol
Appikatay
I
Enti #ein
SOW* 119Marit _ i
fIeskrowlDevise
[iuefafj Pare lidPicommendiod
Reduction
a comprehensive water
conservation strategy appropriate for the
project and location.
The proposed prof t %OA install water -efficient fixtures
and appli es and would comply with the 2010 California
Green Building Code.
Accounted for Above
Design buildings to be water -efficient
Install water -efficient fixtures and
appliances.
Solid Waste Measures
Reuse and recycle construction and
demolition waste (including, but not
limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete,
lumber, metal, and cardboard).
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.
NIA
Integrate reuse and recycling into
residential, industrial, institutional and
commercial projects.
Interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green
waste and containers would be provided throughout the
project site.
NIA
Provide easy and convenient recycling
opportunities for residents, the public,
and tenant businesses.
Land Use Measures
Ensure consistency with 'smart growth'
principles — mixed -use, infitl, and higher
density projects that provide alternatives
to individual vehicle travel and promote
the efficient delivery of services and
goods.
The proposed protect is considered to be an infitl
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 commerdalloffrce 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.
30.0 percent
(reduction in
VMT)
24A percent
Preserve and create open space and
parks. Preserve existing trees, and plant
replacement trees al a set ratio.
The proposed infitl project would be built on a previously
developed area and would not remove parkland or trees.
Additionally, the project would include landscaping and trees.
NIA
Protect existing trees and encourage the
planting of new trees. Adopt a tree
protection and replacement ordinance.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
Include pedestrian and bicyde facilities
within projects and ensure that existing
non -motorized routes are maintained
and enhanced.
Secure bicycle racks are induded in the project design and
would be located near the building entrances. Use of public
transportation is encouraged due to the project site's
proximity to the Metro and Foothill Transit stops. 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.
8.5 percent
(reduction in
VMT)
6.9 percent
Connect parks and open space through
shared pedestrian/bike 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 lo,
non -motorized transportation.
The project consists of an infitl 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.
Accounted for Above
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
29
February 10, 2011
r• • • •
co NeuLTING
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
Table 2 (Continued)
Project Consistency with the Attorney General's Recommendations
Recommended Measures
Pro
Emission
r
'Rid1�t
Enforce and follow limits idling lime For
commercial vehides, including delivery
and construction vehicles,
Construction vehicles are required by CARB to meet the
terms sel forth in CARB Regulation for in -use Off Road
Diesel Vehicles, paragraph (d)(3) Idling. All vehicles,
including diesel trucks accessing the project site, would be
subject to CARB measures and would be required to adhere
t to the five-minute limit for vehicle icrinq
N/A
Total Reductions
_ — 33.3
Notes
1. Emissions reductions calculated in accordance with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association guidance document, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures, September 2010.
Source' State of California Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office. Addressing Climate Change at the Project Level, updated January 5, 2010.
Conclusion
As shown in Table 1, operational -related emissions induding amortized construction emissions
would be 5,272.05 MTCO2eq/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 GHG 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
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
. ■ ■
CONSULTING
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
■ r ■
CONSULTING
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
This page intentionally left blank.
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 32 February 10, 2011
. ■ .
CONSUL/1N°
City of Temple City
Gateway Plaza Project
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
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/gg00rpt/other_gases.html .
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 Policymakers, 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, 201I
PePir
CONSULTING
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.
City of Temple City
Gatevkav Plaza Project
15. United States Energy Information Administration, A Look at Principal Building
Activities, January 3, 2001.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/cbecs/pbawebsite/contents.htm
16. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Class I 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.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryrepor t.html.
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 1 Unit Type L Trip Rate
Proposed Uses
60.5
Shopping Center
Thousand Square Feet
41.671
25.0
General Office Building
Thousand Square Feet
11.01
Displaced Uses2
1,600
Movie Theater 1 Seats 1.80
Notes:
1. The Trip rale accounts for a 34 percent pass by reduction the PM peak hour, based on RBF Consulting, The Gateway Project Traffic
Review, January 25, 2011.
2. Trip data for displaced uses are based on the Raju Associates, Inc., Traffic Studyfor the 9021 Las Tunes 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
Daily
Duration
(months}
Fugitive
Dust
Soil Hauling
(cubic yards)
Onsite cut/fill
(cubic yards per day)
2011
3.6
0.5
1
Low
15.000
666
Mass Grading Equipment IURBEMIS2007 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
Flours 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
Phase 3 — Paving
Duration:
Equipment:
Quantity
4
1
1
1
Type
Excavators
Other General Industrial Equipment
1 month
Type
Cement and Mortar Mixers
Pavers
Rollers
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe
Phase 4 — Building Construction
Duration:
Equipment:
Quantity
2
1
1
10 months
Type
Forklifts
Cranes
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe
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
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
Summer Days
1 2012
180
6 hours
4 hours
8 hours
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
21112011 4:45:57 PM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2 4
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
File Name: H:ICOMMON\AO-Noise References\Air OuahlylModeling1UrbemislProjects\Temple City GHG_existing.urb924
Project Name: Temple City Gateway Plaza -Displaced Uses
Project Location; South Coast AQMD
On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emlac2007 V2.3 Nov i 2006
Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report'
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
i .Q2
TOTALS (tons/year. unmitigated)
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
TOTALS (Ions/year. unmitigated)
73 51
Z
4.719 46
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
.C.02
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 4.763.97
Page: 2
21112011 4:45:57 PM
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmil,galed
Srn,rra CO2
Natural Gas 73 00
Hearth
Landscape 0 51
Consumer Products
Architectural Coalinga
TOTALS (lonsryear, unmitigated) 73.51
Amalgam: Chanone to Defraiji
Operational Unmitigated Detail Report'
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
,ivu[L8 CO2
Moms Theater 4,710 45
TOTALS {Ionslyear. unmrligated) 4,710 45
Operational Settings:
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not urctude double counting adjustment for internal trips
Analysis Year: 2012 Season' Annual
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Page: 3
21112011 4:45:57 PM
Land Use Type
Movie Theater
Vehicle Type
Light Auto
Light Truck c 37501bs
Light Truck 3751.57501bs
Mad Truck 5751.8500 Ibs
L,le•Heavy Truck 8501.10,000 Ibs
Lee -Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs
Med•Heavy Truck 14,001.33,000 Ibs
Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001.80,000 Ibs
Other Bus
Urban Bus
Motorcycle
School Bus
Motor Home
Urban Tnp Length (miles)
Home -Work
Summary off and 1!51'4
Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No Units Total Trips Total VMT
57 66 1000 sq It 50 00 2,893 00 25,958 89
2,693 00 25,958 89
YilbaBEELMIE
Percent Type Non -Catalyst
515 06
7.3 1.4
23 0 0.4
10.7 0.9
1.6 0.0
0.5 0 0
0 9 0.0
0.6 0.0
0.1 0 0
0 1 0.0
2.8 60.7
0.1 0.0
0.9 0.0
Travel Condaionq
Resrdenbal
Home -Shop Home-01her
127 7.0
Commule
9.5 13.3
Catalyst Diesel
99.2 0.2
95 9 2.7
990 00
99.1 0.0
81.2 18.0
60 0 40.0
22 2 77.8
0 0 100.0
0.0 100 0
0.0 100.0
39 3 0.0
0 0 100.0
889 111
Commercial
Mon -Work Customer
7 4 8.9
Page: 4
2/1/2011 4:45:57 PM
Travel Conddrnns.
Restdenbal Commercial
Horne -Work Home -Shop HoraeOther Commute Non -Work Customer
Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14 9 15 4 9 5 12 $
Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30 0 30.0 30.0 30 0
% o1 Trips - Residential 32 9 18 0 49.1
% of Trips • Commercial (by land use)
Movie 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 (Tons/Year)
File Name; H:ICOMMONVIQ-Noise ReferenceslAir Quality!ModelinglUrbemis\Projects\Temple City GHG_3.urb924
Project Name: Temple City Gateway Plaza
Project Location: South Coast AQMD
On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Page: 2
21112011 4:38:15 PM
Summary Report.
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
022
2011 TOTALS (lons/yeer unmitigated) 96 15
2011 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 7615
Percent Reduction 0.00
2012 TOTALS (tons/year unmrligaled) 205 44
2012 TOTALS (lona/year mitigated) 205.44
Percent Reduction 0.00
,:A SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)
165.61
&.Q2
4,61600
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
.C42
TOTALS (lonslyear, unmitigated) 4,781.51
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annuel Tons Per Year. Unmitigated
Page: 3
21112011 4:38:15 PM
G92
2011 70.15
Mass Grading 1010112011- 17.64
10/15/2011
Mass Grading Dust 0.00
Mass Gredmg OH Road Diesel 11.24
Mass Grading On Road Diesel 5.78
Mass Grading Worker Trips 0 62
Fine Grading 10116/2011• 13.04
10/3112011
Fine Grading Dust 0.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 12 36
Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00
Fine Grading Worker Tops 0 68
Trenching VI/0112011-11/30/2011 20.23
Trenching Off Road Diesel 18 86
Trenching Worker Trips 1.37
Building 1210112011-10/3112012 10.24
Building Off Road Diesel 9 83
Budding Vendor Trips 1.93
Building Worker Trips 749
Page: 4
21112011 4:38:15 PM
2012 205.44
Building 12/01/2011.10/3112012 190 64
Building Off Road Diesel 9738
Budding Vendor Trips 19.09
Building Worker Trips 74.17
Asphalt 1110112012-1113012012 13 47
Paving Off -Gas 0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel 10 77
Paving On Road Diesel 0.30
Paving Worker Trips 2.39
almg 1110112012-12/3112012 1.33
Architectural Coating 0,00
Coating Worker Trips 1.33
Please Assumptions
Phase Fine Grading 10116/2011 -1013112011 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Descnpl.on
Total Acres Disturbed. 3.93
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0 98
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default
20 Ibs per acre -day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT). 0
Off -Road Equipment.
1 Graders (174 hp) operating et 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 par day
1 TraclorsAoaders7Backhoes (108 hp) operating al a 0.55 toad factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (169 hp) operating al a 0.5 Toad factor for 6 hours per day
Page: 5
21112011 4:38:15 PM
Phase: Mass Grading 10!1/2011 - 10/15/2011 • Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description
Total Acres Disturbed 3.93
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed0 98
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Onsrle Cul/Fill: 666 cubic yardslday: Offsile CulFill: 0 cubic yards/day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT) 272 73
Off -Road Equipment'
1 Graders (174 hp) operating al a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Doxers (357 hp} operating at a 0.59 load factor for 5 hours per day
1 Tractors JLaaders/Beckhoes (106 hp) operating al a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating al a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Trenching 1111/2011 • 11/30/2011 • Default Trenching Descnption
Off -Road Equipment.
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for B hours per day
S Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0 51 load rector for 6 hours per day
S Tractors 101340 sfBackhoes (108 hp) operating el a 0.55 Ioad factor for 0 hours per day
Phase: Paving 11/1/2012 - 1113012012 • Default Paving Description
Acres la be Paved. 0.4
Off -Road Equipment
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Pavers (100 hp) °paroling a1 a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hp) operahng al a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 TraclorslLoaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating al a 0.50 load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 12/112011 • 10/3112012 - Default Building Construction Damnation
Ofi-Road Equipment.
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating a1 a 0.43 Toad factor for 4 hours per day
Page: 6
2/112011 4:38:15 PM
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating et a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Traclorsll.oaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating al a 0 55 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Architectural Coaling 111112012 -12/3112012 - Default Architectural Coating Description
Rule: Resrdentiaf Interior Coatings begins 111/2005 ends 6130/2008 specifies a VOC of 100
Rule. Residential Interior Coahngs begins 7/1/2008 ends 1213112040 specifies a VOC of 50
Rule' Residential Exterior Coabngs begins 1/1/2005 ends 673012008 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule. Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100
Rule: Nonresidential fnlanor Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/3112040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule. Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1!1/2005 ends 12131/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
^nnsbuclran Mitigated Delad Report
4STRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, litigated
Page: 7
2/112011 4:38:15 PM
2011
70.15
Mass Grading 10!01!2011• 17.64
1011512011
Mass Grading Oust 0.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 11.24
Mass Grading On Road Diesel 5.78
Mass Grading Worker Tnps 0.62
Fine Grading 10/16/2011- 13 04
10/31/2011
Fine Grading Dust 0 00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 12.38
Fine Grading On Road Dread 0.00
Fine Grading Worker Trips 0 68
Trenching 11/0112011.11/3012011 20.23
Trenching O6 Road Diesel 18.86
Trenching Worker Tnps 1.37
Building 12/0112011-10/31/2012 19.24
Building Off Road Diesel 9.83
Building Vendor Trips 1 93
Building Worker Trips 7.49
Page: 8
21112011 4:38:15 PM
2012 205.44
Building 12/01/2011-1013112012 190 64
Budding Off Road Diesel 97.38
Building Vendor Trips 19.09
Building Worker Trips 74.17
Asphalt 1110112012-1113012012 13.47
Paving 08 -Gas 0.00
Paving 011 Road Diesel 10.77
Paving On Road Diesel 0.30
Paving Worker Trips 2.39
?alms 11101.12012-12/3112012 1.33
Architectural Coating 0.00
Coating Walker Trips 1.33
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase Fine Grading 10116(2011 • 10131/2011 - Default Fine Site GradinglExcavahon Descnpbon
Far Soil Stablizing Measures, the Apply sod stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10' 84% PM25: 84%
For Soil Slabhzrng Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by
PM10: 5%14425 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2n deify walenng mitigation reduces emissions by.
PM10: 55% PM25: 551
For Sod Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loadInglunkoading mipgalron reduces emissions by
PM10: 69% PM25: 691
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 1011/2011 • 10/15/2011 - Default Mass Site GradingfExcavalion Description
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Apply aoil stabilizers to inactive areas milrgalion reduces emissions by.
Page: 9
21112011 4:38:15 PM
PM10. 84% PM25. 84%
For Sal Slabiizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by.
PM10' 5%PM25' 5%
For Sod Steblrzing Measures. the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily welenng mitigation reduces emissions by.
PM10. 55% PM25' 55%
For Soil Slabbbzing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mwgalion reduces emissions b}.
PM10' 59% PM25. 59%
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report'
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Par Year. Unmitigated
Snug& C.122
Natural Gas 164.58
Hearth
Landscape i 03
Consumer Products
Architectural Coatings
TOTALS (tons9y.ar, unmdigaledl 185.61
Arne Snurrgs:hsuyipc In f1a(Anill
Page: 10
21112011 4:38:15 PM
Operational Unmitigated Detail Report
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Par Year, Unmitigated
aorta CO2
Stnp mall 4,105 40
General office building 510.50
TOTALS (tonsryear, unmitigated) 4,616,00
Operational Settings'
Does nol include correction for passby trips
^'.as not include double counting adjustment for interne/Ines
ysts Year: 2011 Season. Annual
Emfac. Version Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
SIImmArl of Larni Ilsps
Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT
Stnp mall 41.67 1000 act fl 60 50 2,521 03 22,621.25
General office building 51 01 1000 sq ft 25.00 275 25 2,801.36
2,796.28 25,422.61
Vehicle Fleet Mur
Vehicle Type Percent Typo Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
Light Auto 51.6 0.6 99 0 0.2
Light Truck c 3750 Ibs 7.3 2.7 94 6 2 7
Light Truck 3751.5750lba 23 0 0.4 99.6 0.0
Med Truck 5751-8500Ibs 10 6 0.9 99.1 0.0
Page: 11
2/112011 4:38:15 PM
Vehicle Fleet Mix
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10.000 lbs 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.O00lbs 0 9 0.0 22.2 77.6
Heavy -Heavy 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
Motorcycle 2.13 64.3 35 7 0.0
School Bus 0.1 0.0 0 0 100.0
Motor Home 0.9 0.0 88 9 11.1
Travel Conditions
Residential Commercial
Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer
Urban Tnp Length (miles) 12 7 7.0 9.5 13 3 7.4 8 9
Rural Trip Length (mdes) 17,6 121 14.9 15 4 9.6 12.6
Tnp speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
%of Tnps -Residential 32.9 180 49,1
% of Trips - Commercial (by [and use)
Slnp mall
General office budding
Oggrahonal Chances 10 Defaulll
20 1,0
97.0
350 17.5 475
Page 1
21112011 4:37:27 PM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
File Name: H:\COMMONVIO-Noise ReferenceslAir OualilytiModelmglUrbemis\Projects\Temple City GHG_3.urb924
Project Name: Temple City Gateway Plaza
Project Location: South Coast AOMD
On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Page: 2
2/112011 4:37:27 PM
Summary Repoli:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
2011 TOTALS (Ibslday unmitigated)
2011 TOTALS (Ibsfday mitigated)
3,527 61
3,527.61
2012 TOTALS Obsfday unmitigated) 1,748.98
2012 TOTALS (Ibslday mitigated) 1,748.98
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
TOTALS (Ibafday, unmitigated)
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
TOTALS (Ibsfday. unrndigaled)
X02
907 42
26,118.26
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
2
TOTALS (Ibafday, unmitigated) 27.025.68
Conslruclion Unmitigated Detail Report'
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Page: 3
2/1/2011 4:37:27 PM
Time Shce 10/312011-10/14/2017 1527 61
Active Days. 10
Mass Grading 10101r207 7- 3.527.61
10115/2011
Mass Grading Dust 0.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2,247.32
Mass Grading On Road Diesel 1,155.93
Mass Grading Worker Tnps 124 37
Time Shce 1011712011-1013112011 2,371.69
Active Days 11
Fine Grading 1011612011- 2,371 69
10/31/2011
Fine Grading Dusl 0.00
. Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2,247 32
Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00
Fine Grading Worker Trips 124.37
Time Slice 111112011.1113012011 1,839.01
Active Days 22
Trenching 1110112011.11/3012011 1.839 01
Trenching OH Road Diesel 1,714 64
Trenching Worker Trips 124.37
Time Slice 121112011-12/3012011 1,749.10
Active Days. 22
Budding 1210112011-1013112012 1,749.10
Budding ON Road Diesel 893.39
Budding Vendor Trips 175.17
Building Worker Trips 680 54
Page: 4
2/1/2011 4:37:27 PM
Time Slice 11212012.1013172012 1 748 96
Active Days: 216
Building 12101/2011.10/31/2012 1.748.98
Budding Off Road Diesel 893 39
Building Vendor Trips 17518
Building Worker Tnps 680A2
Time Slice 11!1/2012-1113072012 1,286.31
Active Days 22
Asphalt 11!0112012-11!30f2012 1,224.49
Paving 08 -Gas 0.00
Paving Off Road Diasal 979,23
Paving On Road Diesel 27.66
Paving Worker Trips 217.61
Coating 11101!2012.1213112012 61.81
Architectural Coaling 0.00
Coating Worker Trips 81 61
Time Slice 12/312012-1213112012 61 61
Ackve Days: 21
Coating 11!0112012-12P3112012 81 81
Architectural Coaling 0.00
Coaling Worker Trips 61.81
Phase Assemerrans
Phase: Fine Grading 10/1612011 • 10131!2011 - Default Fine Site Gradrng1Excaval on Decennium
Total Acres Disturbed: 3.93
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0 98
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail Default
Page: 5
21112011 4:37:27 PM
20 Ibs per acre -day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT). 0
Off -Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) operatng 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/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating al a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (169 hp) operating al a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase. Mass Grading 10/1/2011 - 1011512011 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excavation Description
Total Acres Disturbed 3 93
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed. 0.98
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
''See CuLfFda. 666 cubic yards/day; Offsrle Cul/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day
load Truck Travel (VMT). 272 73
utl-Road Equipment.
1 Graders (174 hp) operating al a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating al a 0 59 Toad factor for 6 hours per day
1 TractorsiLoaders)Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 toad factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (1 69 hp) operating at a 0.5 Toad factor for 8 hours per day
Phase. Trenching 11/1/2011 - 1113012011 - Default Trenching Descnptron
Off -Road Equipment:
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating al a 0 57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment(238 hp) operating at a 0.51 Toad factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (106 hp) operating ale 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
Phase: Paving 1111/2012. 11/3012012 • Default Paving Descnplron
Acres to be Paved. 0 4
Oaf -Road Equipment
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating al a 0.56 Toad factor for 6 hours per day
Page: 6
21112011 4:37:27 PM
1 Pavers (160 hp) operating al a 0.62 load lector for 7 hours per dey
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating el a 0.58 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Traclors/LoadersiBBckhoes (108 hp) operating al a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase' Building Construction 12/1/2011 - 10/31/2012 - Default Building Conslruclron Desenption
Olt -Road Equipment:
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating al a 0.43 Ioad factor for 4 hours per day
2 ForkhRs (145 hp) operating el a 0 3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loeders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating al a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase. Architectural Coaling 1111/2012 - 12!3112012 - Default Architectural Coaling Descnptron
Rule Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/112005 ends 813012008 specifies a VOC of 100
Rule: Residential Inferior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 species a VOC of 50
Rule Residential Eslenor Coatings begins 1/112005 ends 8/3012008 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exlenor Coatings begins 711/2008 ends 12)3112040 specifies a VOC of 100
Rule: Nonresidential Inlenor Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12131/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule Nonresidential 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
Page: 7
2/112011 4:37:27 PM
Time Slice 101312011.10114/2011 3,527.61
Active Days' 10
Mass Grading 10101!2011- 3.527.61
10/1512011
Mass Grading Dust 0.09
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2,247.32
Mass Grading On Road Diesel 1,155.93
Mass Grading Worker Tnps 124 57
Time Slice 1011712011.1013112011 2.371.69
Aclive Days. 11
Fine Grading 1011612911- 2,371.69
1013112011
Fine Grading Dusl 0.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2,247.32
Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00
Fine Grading Worker Trips 124 37
Time Slice 111112011.11130/2011 1,639.01
Active Days 22
Trenching 1110112011.1113012011 1,839.01
Trenching Off Road Diesel 1,714.64
Trenching Worker Trips 124.37
Time Slice 1211/2011.1213012911 1,749 10
Active Days. 22
Building 12101/2011-10/31/2012 1.749.10
Building Off Road Diesel 893 39
Building Vendor Tnps 175.17
Building Worker Tnps 680.54
Page: 8
211/2011 4:37.27 PM
Time Slice 11212012.10131!2412 1.748,98.
Active Days: 215
Budding 1210112011.1013112012 1,748.98
Budding Off Road Diesel 893.39
Building Vendor Trips 175.18
Budding Worker Trips 880.42
Time Slice 111112012-11/3012012 1,286 31
Active Days 22
Asphalt 1110112012-1113012012 1,224.49
Paving Dff•Gas 0 00
Paving Off Road Diesel 979 23
Paving On Road Diesel 27.66
Paving Worker Tnps 217.61
Coating 1110112012.12/3112012 6i 81
Architectural Coating 0 00
Coating Worker Tnps 61.81
Time Siete 12!312012-1213112012 61.81
Active Days: 21
Coaling 1114112012-10112012 81.81
Architectural Coating 0 00
Coaling Worker Tnps 81.81
Construction Related Mdipation Measures
The following mitigation measures apply la Phase Fine Grading 1011612011 - 1013112011 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Description
For Sod Slabluing Measures. the Apply soil slabtkzers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions b;.
PM10' 64% PM25: 84%
For Soil Stablizrng Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by
Page: 9
21112011 4:37:27 PM
PM10. 5% PM25. 5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by'
PM10. 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by.
PM10 69% PM25: 69%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase' Mass Grading 10/112011 -10115/2011 - Default Mass Site Grading/Excevatan Description
For So,LSlabtung Measures, the Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by
PM10 84% PM25. 04%
For Soil Slebtaing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by
PM10. 594 PM25. 5'
For Soil Slabtizing Measures, the Wafer exposed surfaces 2x daily walenng mitigation reduces ami9sians by.
PM10: 55% PM25. 55%
• Soil Stabla,np Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by
'0. 69% PM25: 69%
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source G42
Natural Gas 001.50
Hearth
Landscape 5.62
Consumer Products
Architectural Coatings
TOTALS (bs/oay- unmitigated) 907 42
Area Snurce Chanarts to Ilafaulle
Page: 10
21112011 4:37:27 PM
Operational Unmitigated Delail Report:
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source CO2
Strip mall 23,229 53
General office building 2,088.73
TOTALS (1baIday. unnriligeted} 28,118.20
Operational Settings:
Does not include correction for passby taps
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal lops
Analysis Year. 2011 Temperature (F). 50 Season Summer
Emfeo' Version Emfec2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Summaapjlnzi_Uses
Lend Use Type Acreage Trip Rale Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT
Slnp mall 41 67 1000 sq ft 60 50 2,521.03 22,621.25
General office building 11.01 1000 sq fl 2500 275.25 2,801.36
2,796 28 25,422 61
Vehicle Fleet Mg
Vehicle Type Percent Type NomCatalysl Catalyst Diesel
Light Auto 51.6 0.8 99 0 0 2
Light Truck c 37501bs 7 3 2.7 94.6 2.7
Light Truck 3751.57501bs 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 4:37:27 PM
Vehicle FleeiJdiK
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
Lite•Heavy Truck 8501.10.000Ibs 1.6 0.0 81.2 18 B
Lile•Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs 0.5 0 0 60.0 40 0
Med•HeevyTruck 14,001.33,000Ibs 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8
Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001.60,0001bs 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
Motorcycle 2.8 64.3 35.7 0.0
School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
rHome 09 0.0 88.9 111
Travel Cond,lrons
Residential Commercial
Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer
Urban Trip Length (miles) 12 7 7.0 9.5 13 3 7.4 6.9
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 Trips - Commercial (by land use)
Strip mall
General office building
2.0 1.0 97 0
35.0 17,5 47.5
Page: 1
21112011 4:37:57 PM
Ilrbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)
File Name: H:ICOMMONIAQ-Noise ReferenceslAir QualitylModelinglUrbemis\Projects\Temple City GMG_3,urb924
Project Name: Temple City Gateway Plaza
Project Location: South Coasl AQMD
On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Page: 2
211/2011 4:37:57 PM
Summary Report'
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
2011 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated)
2011 TOTALS (Ibslday mibgaled)
2012 TOTALS (Ibslday unmitigated)
2012 TOTALS (Ibsfday mibgeled)
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
ALS (Ibs1day, unmibgaled)
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
TOTALS (Ibslday, unmitigated)
CO2
3,527.61
3,527.61
1,746.96
1,748.98
r.Q2
901.80
022
23.642 90
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
C.Q2
TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmmgafed) 24.544 70
Consbucl,on Unmitigated Dalai Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Nhnter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Page' 3
2!112011 4:37:57 PM
Time Slice 10/3/2011-101141201s x,527.61
Active Days. 10
Mass Grading 1010112011• 3,527.61
10115!2011
Mass Grading Dust 0 00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.247,32
Mass Grading On Road Diesel 1,155 93
Mass Grading Worker Trips 124.37
Time Slice 1011712011-1013112011 2,371.69
Active Days: 11
Fine Grading 1011612011- 2.371.69
10131/2011
Fine Grading Oust 0.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2,247 32
Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0 00
Fine Grading Worker Trips 124.37
Time Slice 11!112011-1173012011 1,839.01
Active Days: 22
Trenching 1170112011-11730!2011 1,639.01
Trenching Off Road Diesel 1,714.64
Trenching Worker Trips 124.37
Time Slice 127172011-12/3012011 1,749.10
Active Days: 22
Budding 12/0112011-1013112012 1,749.10
Building Off Road Diesel 893.39
Building Vendor Tnps 175.17
Building Worker Trips 660.54
Page: 4
21112011 4:37:57 PM
Time Slice 11212012-10/3112012 1.746.88
Active Days 218
Building 12!01!2011.16131!2012 1,748.98
Building Off Road Diesel 893.39
Bolding Vendor Trips 175.18
Building Worker Trips 880.42
Time SIice 1111!2012.1113012012 1,288.31
Active Days. 22
Asphalt 11/0112012-11/3012612 1,224 49
Paving Off -Gas 0.00
Pacing Off Road Diesel 979 23
Paving On Road Diesel 27.66
Paving Worker Trips 217.61
Coaling 1110112012-1213112012 61.81
Architectural Coaling 0 00
Coating Worker Trips 61 81
Time Slice 12/312012-12/3112012 61.81
Active Days 21
Coaling 1110112012-12131/2012 61.81
Architectural Coating 0.00
Coaling Worker Trips 61.81
Phase Assummmns
Phase: Fine Grading 10/16/2011 - 10/31/2011 - Default Fine Sae Grading/Excavation Description
Total Acres Disturbed: 3.93
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.98
Fugitive Duel Level of Detail' Default
Page: 5
21112011 1:37:57 PM
20 lb; per acre -day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0
Off -Road Equipment'
1 Graders (174 hp) operating al a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating el a 0 50 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 TractorsfLoaders&Backhoes (108 hp) operating a1 a 0.55 Ioad factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating al a 0 5 Ioad factor for 8 hours per day
Phase Mass Grading 107112011 • 10/1512011 - Default Mass Site GradinglExcavatron Descnplion
Total Acres Disturbed: 3.93
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.98
Fugitive Dust Levet of Detail: Low
Onatla Cut/Fill. 666 cubic yards/day, Olfsde CuUFiII: 0 cubic yards/day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 272.73
Off -Road Equipment
1 Graders 1174 hp) operating a1 a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 Ioad factor for 6 hours per day
1 TractorsfLo8ders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 Ioad factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 bad factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Trenching 111112011 - 11/3012011 - Default Trenching Descnpbon
Off -Road Equipment:
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating al a 0 57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0 51 toed factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/LoadarslBackhoes (108 hp) operating al a 0.55 Toad factor for 0 hours per day
Phase' Paving 1111/2012 - 11130/2012 • Default Paving Description
Acres 10 be Paved R4
Off -Road Equipment.
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
Page; 6
2/1/2011 4:37:57 PM
1 Pavers (100 hp} operating al a 0.62 bad factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0 56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Traclors/LoadersBackhoes (108 hp) operating al a D.55load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 1211/2011 - 10131/2012 - Default Building Construction Desorption
Q8•Road Equipment:
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0 43 load /actor for 4 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating al a 0.3 bed factor for 6 hours per day
1 Traclors/LoedersBackhoes (108 hp) operating al a 0 55 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Architectural Coating 11/1/2012 - 12131/2012 - Default Architectural Coaling Description
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100
Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 species a VOC of 50
,e Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule. Residential Exlenor Coatings begins 7/1;2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC 01 100
Rule Nonresidential Inlanor Coatings begins 1/112005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated
Page: 7
21112011 4:37:57 PM
Time Slice 10/3/2011.1(1114/2011 i'+ 577 61,
Active Days 10
Mass Grading 10101!2011• 3,527 61
10115/2011
Mass Grading Dust 0.00
Mss Grading Off Road 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
Actva Days 11
Fine Grading 1011612011- 2.371.69
1013112011
Fine Grading Dust 0.00
Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 2,247.32
Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0 00
Fine Grading Worker Taps 124 37
Time Slice 111112011-1113012011 1,839 01
Active Days 22
Trenching 1110112011-1113012011 1,839 01
Trenching OH Road Diesel 1,714.64
Trenching Worker Trips 124.37
Time Slice 12l112011-12./30/,2011 1,749.10
Active Days: 22
Building 1210112011-1013112012 1,749 10
Building Off Road Diesel 893.39
Budding Vendor Trips 175 17
Building Worker Tops 680.54
Page: 8
2/112011 4:37:57 PM
Time Slice 112!2012-10!3112012 1 748 96
Achve Days. 218
Building 1210112011.1013112012 1,748.98
Building Off Road Diesel 893.39
Budding Vendor Tnps 175 18
Building Worker Trips 680.42
Time Slice 111112012.1113012012 1,286.31
Acbve Days 22
Asphalt 11/01/2012-11/3012012 1,224.49
Paving Off -Gas 0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel 979.23
Paving On Road Diesel 27,66
Paving Worker Tnps 217 61
Coaling 1110112012-1213112012 61 81
Architectural Coaling 0.00
Coating Worker Tnps 61.81
Time Slice 121312012-1213112012 61.81
Active Days. 21
Coaling 11/01)2012.1213112012 61.81
Architectural Coaling 0.00
Coating Worker Tnps 61.81
filg sind„n ti•lelntl Md<gnr nn MnAyrrgt
The following mitigation measures apply Lo Phase. Fine Grading 10/1612011 • 10/31/2011 • Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Description
For Sod Slablizing Measures, the Apply soil slabtlizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by'
PM10: 84% PM25' 84%
For Sod Stablrzing Measures, Lhe Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by.
Page: 9
21112011 4:37:57 PM
PM1D 5% PM25. 5%
Far Sol Slabhzrng Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watenng mitigation reduces emissions by
PM10. 55% PM25: 55%
For Soil Slablizing Measures, the Equipment loadingfunloading maigauon reduces emissions by.
PM10.69% PM25 69%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/112011 - 10/1512011 • Default Mass Site GredmgfExcavatlon Description
For Soil Slablizing Measures. the Apply soil stabilizers to rneci.ve areas mitigation reduces emissions by
PM10: 64% PM25' 84%
For Soil Slebhzing MaBSUIESS. the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10' 5% PM25: 5%
For Soil Slabbzing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mdigabon reduces emissions by:
PMIO: 55% PM25: 55%
For Sal Stabilizing Measures,. the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10. 69% PM25: 69%
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day. Unmitigated
SourrR
Natural Gas
Hearth
Landscaping • No Winter Emissions
Consumer Products
Architectural Coatings
TOTALS (Ibsidey. unmibgate41
C.42
901.80
901.80
Area Sourra Changan In fMfaitg•
Page: 10
2/1/2011 4:37:57 PM
Operational Unmitigated Detail Repoli:
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day. Unmitigated
&a:= CO2
Strip mall 21,026 93
General office building 2,615.97
TOTALS (Ibafday, unmitigated) 23.642.90
Operational Settings.
Does not include correction for passby lnps
es not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
alysis Year 2011 Temperature (F). 60 Season- Winter
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2 3 Nov 1 2006
Summary of 1 rind l Iseq
Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No Units Total Trips Total VMT
Strip mall 41 67 1000 sq ft 60.50 2,521 03 22,621 25
General office budding 11 Ot 1000 sq ft 2500 275.25 2.601 36
2,796.26 25,422.61
Vehicle Fleet (1dOf
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
Light Auto 51.6 0.6 99,0 0.2
Light Truck a 3750Ibs 7.3 2 7 94.6 2.7
Light Truck 3751.5750 lbs 23.0 0.4 99.6 0.0
Med Truck 5751.8500 Iba 10 6 0.9 99.1 0.0
Page: 11
21112011 4:37:57 PM
Vehicle Fleet Meat,
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst
Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10.000 Ibs 1 6 0 0
Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001.14.000 Ibs 0 5 0 0
Med-Heavy Truck 14.001.33,000 Ibs 0 9 0.0
Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001.60,000 Ibs 0 5 0.0
Other Bus 0 1 0.0
Urban Bus 0 1 0.0
Motorcycle 2 8 64 3
School Bus 0 1 0.0
Motor Home 0 9 0.0
Travel Condpio s
Residential
Horne -Work Home -Shop Home -Other
Urban Trip Length (miles) 12 7 7.0 9 5
Rural Tnp Length (miles} 17 6 12.1 14 9
Tnp speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30 0
%of Tnps • Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
Strip mall
General office building
Catalyst Diesel
612 186
60.0 40.0
22 2 77 6
0.0 100 0
00 1000
0 0 100.0
357 00
00 100.0
68.9 11 1
Commercial
Commute Non -Work
13.3 7.4
154 9.6
Customer
8.9
52 6
30 0 30.0 30.0
2.0 1 0 97 0
35.0 17.5 47.5
Construction Emissions
2011
14 W Grading
Duration (days):
15
Equipment
Emission Factors
N,O
Hours/day
Emissions (poundslhour)
Emissions
(tons/year)
CH,
N10
CO,
CH,
Quantity
CO,
CH,
N,0
CO,
Graders
132.7
0.0155
0.0035
6
1
132.7
0.0155
0.0035
5.9715
00007
00002
Rubber Teed Dozers
239.1
0 0305
0 0062
6
1
239.1
0.0305
0.0062
10.7595
0.0014
0.0003
TractorsfLoadersBackhoes
66 8
0.0092
0 0017
7
1
66.8
0.0092
0.0017
3.5070
0.0005
0.0001
Off-HrghwayTrucks
260.1
0.0224
00067
8 _
1
_ 260.1
0.0224
00067
15.6060
0.0013
0.0004
Total Emissions
35.6440
0.0039
0.0009
film Grading
Olga cm ta4ryal:
Equipment Emission
Factors
yourslday
Quantity
Emissions (pounds/hour)
Emissions
(tons/yeer)
CH,
N.0
CO,
CH,
N,0
CO,
CH.
N.O
CO,
13ra„aers
132.7
0 0155
0.0035
6
1
132.7
0.0155
0.0035
5.9715
0.0007
0.0002
14db46: 1uea J3 ztr5
239.1
0.0305
0.0062
6
1
239.1
0.0305
0.0062
10.7595
0 0014
0.0003
T;ECICrskeiader;ae+ack:rtes
66 8
0.0092
0 0017
7
1
66.8
0.0092
0.0017
3.5070
0.0005
0 0001
Dif'Hrghwaeii'4i9C
2601
00224
0.0067
8
1
260.1
. 0.0224
..0.0067
15.6060
0.0013
00004
Total Emissions
35.8440
0.0039
0.0009
15
Trios -Ding
22
Equipment
Emission Factors
N,0
Hourslday
Quantity
Emissions(ppundalhour)
EmIaslons(tonstyear)
CO,
CH,
CO,
CH,
N10
CO,
CH. ii
14,0E-retvak,ts.
119 6
0,0134
0 0631
8
2
239.2
0.0268
0.0062
21.0496
0.0024
0.0005
clirrlsr EK al IndugUisl Lamera
152 2
0 0166
0 004
8
1
152.2
_ 0.0166
0,0040
13.3936
0.0015
0.0004
rots! Emissions
34.4432
0 0038
0.0009
bolidii q
awrlarierarl r><Jar
Equipment
Emission Factors
N,0
Hours/day
Quantity
Emissions (poundsthour)
Emissions
(tons/year)
CH,
11,0
CO,
CH,
CO,
CH.
N10
CO.
lrar-tistttlstierslHac+rrieas
668
0.0092
00017
8
1
68.8
0.0092
0.0017
5.8784
0.0008
00001
sC;ranae
128.7
0 0144
0 0033
4
1
128 7
0.0144
0.0033
5.6628
0.0006
0.0001
ryslrhs,
54 4
0.0362
0.0014
6
2
108 8
0.0124 _
0.0028
7.1608
0.0008
0 0002
Total Emissions _
15.7220
0 0023
0.0005
Total Construction Emissions - Year grill
lon roi,r_
_. :Yt,6ihi
n,01
DO?
meMkl riPeaW
"13:6
001
D011
.006r
Melft 9dit r f.141,
"/IN
`_sit:
2012
mamma
Duration rdaysl:
229
Equipment
Emission Factors
Hours/day
Quantity
Emissions (pounds/hour)
EmIssionsjlonskear}
co,
CH,
N,0
CO,
CH,
N,O
CO,
CH.
NrO
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
66 8
0 0092
0 0017
8
1
66.8
0.0092
0.0017
58.7840
0 0081
0.0015
Cranes
128 7
0.0144
0.0033
4
1
128 7
0.0144
0.0033
56.6260
0 0063
0 0015
Forklifts
54.4
0.0062
0.0014
6
2
108.8
0.0124
0.0026
71.8080
0.0082
00018
Total Emlasfoes
187.2200
0.0226
0.0048
FA�191+9
Duration (days}:
22
Equipment Emission
Factors
Hours/day
Quantity
Emissions (pounds/hour)
Emissions
(lonaltear)
CH.
N10
CO,
CH,
N,0
CO,
CH.
NO
CO,
Cement and Mortar Myers
7.2
0.0009
0 0002
6
4
28.6
0.0036
0.0008
1.9008
0.0002
0 0001
Pavers
77.9
0.016
0.002
7
1
77,9
0.0160
0.0020
5.9983
0.0012
0.0002
TraclorslLoaders(Backhoes
66.8
0.0092
0.0017
7
1
66 8
0.0092
0,0017
5.1436
0.0007
0.0001
Rollers
67.1
0 0106
0 0018
7
1
67.1 _
0.0106
0.0018
5.1667
0.0008
0.0001
Tota/Emtsrlons
16.2094
0.0030
0.0005
Total Construction Emissions • Year2O12
Noun
Caneeuceen Equipment Emmlon Fedor &wirier Provided by SCAQMD
Refer W the URBEMIS 2007 eewmpwru a d model output for coma-1Am equipment assumptions
ennM)iniar
metric iorea! eee
156 36,
0.03 0.0r
_002 005
ma Pin Alpo 00. et}ysar
AE 36:
Emissions From Natural Gas Consumed By Land Uses
Land Use 1
Amami
-
Cebicl, t,ps
enit}4auara
1e-eGceaty rrtir per
Month
. y
ralgton cubic tcetj
_ _
Car
1.211E-04
D
2,20Egti
C H
2.30E-09
Residential
..
Single Family Units
6665
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Fancily Units
4011.5
0.00
0.00
0.00
NonResidential
Indutsrial
30
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hotel/Motel
75
0.00
0.00
0.00
Retail!Shopping Center
60.500
45.2
10.94
0.00
0.00
Office
14500
35.7
2.07
0.00
0.00
35
0.00
0.00
0.00
_Blank
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
..
2.15E+00
3.95E.05
4.13E-05
COI
- - - a H,
metric tons per year
715
fi60 _
- 0 ea
metric tons CO2eq per year
r
,rp.0
Notes:
1. Usage rale besed on factors from the Energy Information Administration (http:ll# nv.eia.doe.govfemeuicbecsicbecsreeoris hunt)
2. Conversion from metric tons per year to metric tons of CO2eq per year is based upon the EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculatoi.
h tlp. /Mww. epe. govld ea n en er gyfe nergy-resou rces/ralcula tor, hIml
Source:
South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEOA Ar Quality Handbook, November 1993. Teble A9.t2.
Emissions From Electricity Consumed By Land Uses
r
Land Use
Amount
urs
°rllnwstt h° CO2
pIr ysasrl
!
Nis)
cit.
4.04E45
Residential (Dwelling Units)
12626.5
0.00
0.00
0.00
Food Store (SF)
.{810I0
b0 4=
3,276.12
0.03
0.21
Restaurant SF
1.1 MD
56
695.44
0.01
0.04
Hospitals (SF)
26.6
0.00
0.00
0.00
Retail(SF)
145U
fl8
300.48
0.00
0.02
Colle. erUniverslt SF
8.4
0.00
0.00
0.00
High School (SF)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Elementa School ol SF
8.4
0.00
0.00
0.00
Office SF
4,500
18.9
481.28
0.00
0.03
Hotel/Motel (SF) _
9 45
0.00
0.00
0.00
Warehouse (SF)
4;55
0.00
0.00
0.00
Miscellaneous (SF)
10.5
0.00
0.00
0.00
Blank
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL - pounds per day
..
-
4,753.32
0.05
0.30
TOTAL - tons per year
--
807.48
0.01
0.05
TOTAL - metric tons psryeatr
..
•.
r80,01'
_ 0.01
0,05
CO2
N20
CH,,
metric tons per year
786,97
0.0051
0.04
trha IItttypq
. {§Wit,za9:A r, year
786.97
2,61
1.04 7ti0.d(1;.
Notes:
1 Usage rate based on factors from the Energy Information Administration (http:IMvrw.eia.doe.govlemeulbecatcbecsreports.html)
2. Conversion from metric Ions per year to rnelrre tons of COaeq per year is based upon the EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calcutelor;
hllp.11www.epa.govideanenergyienergy-resourcesrcalculator.hl rd
Source for greenhouse gas emissions rates'
U.S. Energy Information Administration. Domestic Electricity Emissions rectors 1999-2002, October 2007. htlplMww.era doe.goviowff160511echasseL btml
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, September 2010 and California Climate Action Registry
(CCAR) Database. Power/Utility Protocol (PUP) Report. 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%
Total 12.0%
Total Unmitigated Emissions
Mitigated Emissions
MTCO2eq
790.51
695.65
Water Consumption - Indirect Emissions
Water Demand (MG/year):
17
Percent Local:
100%
Percent Import:
Gvia
Percent Indoor
70%%
Percent Oudoor
30%
Emissions:
Measure
4.2.1
4.2.3
4.2.4
Energy Intensity of Water
Use (kWh/MG):
Local Source:
Import Source:
75,612
Los Angeles4 groundwater
SWP to I A Basin surface water
a
Ntif?
C1S,
Tow arrcrv,
1bs/year —_
- 59.372 26
. 52
. ..
•-. r
MT/year
2i 48
MTCO eq/year
. _
_.:: ?
1: .:(J
6,.601
Abbreviations:
kWh a kilowatt hour
MG rmllon gallons
SWP = Slate Water Project
WD = water district
Notes:
Sources:
Cetdornia Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, September 2010
CEC. 2006 Refining Estimates of Water•Related Energy Use in Ca/dome. PIER Final Report. Prepared by Navrganl Consulting, Inc. CEC-500.2006-116. December
Available al: hltpJAwww.energy ea.goo/2006pubhcalians!CEC-500.2006.11810EC-500.2006-118.PDF
CEC. 2005. Catdornie's Water -Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report. CEC 700.2005 -011 -SF. Available online at hllp./AwAv.energy ca.govf2005publications/CEC•700.2005-
011 f C E C -700.20115-011-S F. PD F
NRDC. 2004. Energy Dawn the Drain' The hidden Costs o1 Cahforma's Water 5uppry Prepared by NRDC and the Pacific Insfiluge Available online al.
httpl/www nrdc.orgAvalerlcanservatiwYedrainfedrain.pdf
Install Low -Flow Water Fixtures
Water Efficient Landscapes
Water Efficient Irrigation Syster
Tote! 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%
20.0%
18.1%
18.7%
MTCO2eq
26.58
21.33
(indoor only)
(outdoor only)
(outdoor only)
Existing Mobile Source Emissions Calculations
Existing VMT:
Year
25,959
2012
Total
Breakdown of
Emission Factor
Emis Passcal Emis Deth
Passnger Delivery
Total Emissions
VMT
Gasoline
Diesel
Passnger
Delivery
pounds/day
tonslyear
tons/year
manic. trios/year
CO
25.959
24,661
1,298
0.0077
0.0155
188.77
20.06
34,45
3.66
38.11
34 1.8
NO„
25,959
24.661
1,298
0 0008
0.0173
19 13
22.49
3.49
4.10
7 60
6 89
N,0'
N/A
N/A
NIA
NiA
NIA
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
0 37
x,134
ROG
25,959
24.661
1.298
0 0008
0 0022
19.64
2.90
3.58
0 53
4.11
3 7.1
SO„
25,959
24,661
1,298
0.0000
0.0000
0.26
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.05
C, 051
PM,,,
25 959
24.661
1,298
0.0001
0.0006
2.21
064
0.40
0.15
0 56
7 51
PM2 s
25,959
24,661
1_298
0 0001
0 0005
1 42
0.71
0.26
0,13
0.39
7 35
CH4
25.959
24,661
1, 298
0 0001
0.0001
1.77
0.14
0.32
0.03
0.35
0 32
CO,
25 959
24,661
1,298
1.1015
2 7663
27.164 66
3,590.48
4,957 55
655.26
5.612.81
5na1 116
CO3
N=0
Cii4
Total
MTCOren
metric tons per year
5,091 86
0 34
0 32
mettle torts COgeq per year
5,991.86
104.09
6.63
5,202.57
Notes:
1. VMT based upon URBEMIS 2007 model output
2. Emission Factor based upon EMFAC 2007 (version 2.3). tirghost (Most Conservative) Emission Factors l0 0n-Aoad Passenger Vehrdss and Datvery Trucks.
3. Nreakdovm of 95% gasoline and 5%4esel vehicles is based on the feel min: for the prcjecl
4. Emisson Factor for 14,0 based upon ■ conversion ratio 010.01873 from NOx to NO, Based upon California Alt Resources Board. Estimates el N,frous Oxide
Emissions from Motor Vehicles and Ito Effects of Catalyst Compos kon and Aging. 2095.
5 Conversion from metric tons per year to rnelnc tats of CO2eq per year is based upon the EPA Greenhouse Gas Equwalencies Calculator;
hop:rlvxw.epa govtdeerrenergyferlergytesourceslcalculator.html
Mobile Source Emissions Calculations
Project VMT.
Year.
25,423
2012
Total
Breakdown of
Emission Factor
I Emis Passel& Emis Doii1
Passnger Delivery
Total Emissions
VMT
Gasoline
Diesel
Passnger
Delivery
pounds/day
tons/year
tons/year
metric tonsryear
CO
25,423
24.151
1,271
0 0077
0 0155
184,87
19.65
33 74
3.59
37,33
^+3 8h
NOx
25,423
24,151
1,271
0.0008
D.0173
18 74
22.02
3 42
4 02
7.44
ti 7ri
Nz0'
NIA
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
NIA
N/A
0 36
7 33
ROG
25,423
24,151
1,271
0 0008
0.0022
19 23
2.84
3 51
0.52
4 03
3 h5
SOX
25,423
24 151
1,271
0.0000
0.0000
0 26
0.03
0 05
0.01
0 05
7 05
PM,2
25,423
24 151
1 271
0 0001
0.0006
2 17
0.83
040
0.15
0 55
0 50
PMTS
25,423
24,151
1,271
00001
0.0305
1.39
0.70
0.25
0.13
0.38
0 `.S
CH,
25,423
24,151
1.271
0 0001
0.0001
1.73
0.14
0,32
0.02
0 34
0 :i1
CO2
25,423
24,151
1,271
1 1015
2.7663
26,603.47
3,516 31
4,855.13
641 73
5.496.66
4956.67
c02
N.20
CHI
TM'
llaTC07eq
metric tons per year
4,986 67
0 33
0 31
metric tons CO1egiper year
4,986.57
101,94
6.49
5,095.10
Notes
1. VMT based upon ulteemIS 2007 model oulptrl
2. Emission Factor based upon EMFAC 2007 (version 2.3). Highest (Most Conservative) Emission Factors It On -Road Passenger Vehrtles and Delivery Trucks_
3 Breakdown of 95% gasoline and 5%-eesel vehicles Is based m the feel mix for the project.
4. Emission Factor for I4 O based upon a conversion ratio of 0.04873 from NOx to N}O Based upon Calories Air Resources Board. Est/mares ofNitrws Oxide
Emissions from Motor Vehicles and the Elects of Cataysf Composition and Aping, 2095.
5, Conversion from metric tons per year to metric torn of CO2eq per year is based upon the EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Celculakm
hip flmov.epa gavieleanenergyienataffesauroesftalculetor hlml
Mobile Source Reduction Calculations
Measure
3.1.1 Increase Density
3.1.5 Increase Transit Accessibility
3.1,8 Locale Near Bike PalhfLane
Fora/
Total Unmitigated Emissions
Mitigated Emissions
3.1.1 Increase Density
Percent Reduction
30.0%
7.8%
0.625%
38.5%
% VMT Reduction = A • B [not to exceed 30%]
MTCOieq
4,295.99
2,643.58
percentage In jobsper acre = (number of jobs per acre - number of jobs per acre for typical ITE development) /
A - (number or jobs per acre for Typical ITE development)
B = Elasticity of VMT with respect to density (0.07)
# Jobs =
Protect Acreage =
Jobs per Acre =
Jobs per Acre for Typical ITE
Development =
300
3,7
81.1
20
% VMT Reduction = ((81.1 - 20) I (20)) ` 0.12 = 0.3665
% VMT Reduction = = 36.55%
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. l0 Transit
Transit mode share calc. equation
(where x = dist. of project to transit)
4 - 0.5 miles
0.5 - 3 miles
> 3 miles
-50"x+38
-4.4`x+15.2
no impact
B = adjustments from transit ridership increase to VM'T (0.67)
% VMT Reduction = 7.64%
• Assumes dislence la transit Millions in project is 3 miles
3.1.6 Locate Project Near Bike Path/Bike Lane
The project must be located within 1/2 mile of an existing Class I or Class Il bike lane.
When grouped with Strategy 3.1.4, the reduction in VMT would be 0.625%.
% VMT Reduction = 0.625%
0
14725 Alton
Irvine, Call
fax: 94�49.472.R373
Appendix B
Traffic Memorandum
PBFFt-
CONSULTING
MEMORANDUM
To: Patrick Lang — City of Temple City
From: Paul Martin — RBF Consulting
Date: January 25, 2011
Subject: 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 • OEBIGN • CONSTRUCTION
14725 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92618.2027 ■ P.O. Box 57057, Irvine, CA 92619-7057 a 949.472.3505 ■ FAX 949.472.8373
Offices located throughout Califomia, Arizona & Nevada • www.RBF.com
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
s Tri
P
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Approved Piazza Las Tunas Project
45
55
100
98
94
192
1,413
Source: 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: 2006 ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8"' Edition.
Note: tsf = thousand square feet.
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
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
1TE 34% P.M. Peak Hour Pass -By Reduction°
N/A
NIA
N/A
-38
-39
-77
-77
14.5 tsf General Office Building
20
3
23
4
18
22
160
Displaced Uses (1,600 seat Movie Theater)2
-15
-5
-20
-73
-54
-127
-2,893
Total Revised Project Trip Generation
42
22
64
4
40
44
-212
1= 1TE Trip Generation Handbook, 2"d Edition, 2004.
2= Traffic Study for the 9021 Las Tunas Drive Mixed -Use Project (Raju Associates, Inc., March 2006), Table 5.
Note: tsf = thousand square feet; N/A = Not applicable.
As shown in Table 3, the revised project is forecast to generate approximately 212 less 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?
2005
2009
1 — Rosemead BlvdlLongden Ave
AM
3412
2879
-533
Decrease
PM
3484
3510
26
Negligble'
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-Tum 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 Boulevard/Las Tunas Drive intersection for the four
available data points.
Table 5
Rosemead BoulevardlLas 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-Tum 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 949.855/005 — 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
DAY: TUESDAY
LOCATION: City of Temple City
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
VOLUMES = 105 2221 83 130 1992 87
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 715 AM
EL ET ER
73 235 93
WL WT WR TOTAL
144 114 76 5653
PEAK
VOLUMES = 70 1366 55 88 1138 56 50 159 52 79 250 49
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.930 0.940 0.837 0.945
CONTROL:
3412
0.943
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:
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 1
3484
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
DAY: TUESDAY
LOCATION: City of Temple City
PROJECT# 05-2347-002
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 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 1 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 NL NT NR SL ST SR
VOLUMES = 24 3053 12 18 2586 13
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 12 1669 4 11 1305 7
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.870 0.926
CONTROL:
EL
4
ET ER
0 8
3 0 5
0.667
WL
1
WT WR
1 9
0 1 4
0.313
TOTAL
5729
3021
0.895
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
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 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
1
4
1
77
I
1 0 17
1
6162
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 25 1494 11
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
CONTROL:
0.924
49 1569 19
0.970
1 0 48 0 0 11 3227
1
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: NIS ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
EIW LAS TUNAS DRIVE
1 -AM
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
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 3i 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
6
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
4-1
341 1$7
580
135
1
333 1177
1
85
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
1097
164
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 LAS TUNAS DRIVE
1 -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
EHLT
400-415 26 298 4i 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 24 141 48 42 237 66 52 212 72
445-500 29 314 65 25 143 54 37 243 71 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 4 630
207 228
i r
294 1014 155
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION
329 DIAMOND STREET
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
626.446.7978
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
CLIENT:
PROJECT:
DATE:
PERIOD:
INTERSECTION
FILE NUMBER:
NIS
ENV
RAJU ASSOCIATES, INC.
TEMPLE CITY TMC PROJECT
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
BROADWAY
2 -AM
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
715-730
730-745
745-800
800-815
815-830
830-845
845-900
10
7
10
18
17
23
23
21
260
307
323
283
273
260
273
290
6
11
15
25
27
31
28
19
18
20
25
30
26
40
36
23
77
67
125
90
95
122
132
96
24 11
29 12
32 17
34 19
26 11
27 16
40 10
27 11
304
315
332
355
348
333
310
301
20
37
57
63
81
75
52
57
31
37
53
53
87
55
62
55
18
36
52
69
63
71
64
66
10
16
20
20
20
20
14
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
700-800
715.815
730-830
745-845
800-900
A.M. PEAK HOUR
730-830
BROADWAY
45
52
68
81
84
1173
1186
1159
1109
1116
THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION
329 DIAMOND STREET
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
626.446.7978
57
78
98
111
105
80
255
248
93
101
121
132
125
379
397
432
439
445
68
276
119
121
ii9
127
120
59
59
63
56
48
1159 98
1
1368
1306
1350
1368
1346
1292
177
238
276
271
265
1
r
63
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
174
230
248
257
259
121
432
119
175
220
255
267
264
66
76
80
74
67
TOTALS
3823
4108
4287
4270
4190
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: N/S ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
EIW 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 28
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
74
425
BROADWAY
147
THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION
329 DIAMOND STREET
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
626.446.7978
93
1448 192
176 1196 74
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
137
291
55
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:
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM 11 2 4 1 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 = 160 85 89 65 79 94 41 632 197 54 1208 26 2730
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0,780 0.888 0.806 0.950 0.930
CONTROL:
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
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 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
1
129 139 132
1
147 2802 76
1
105 1673 179
5683
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
CONTROL:
66 69 65 96 64 84 1567 37 63 923 100 3174
0.795 0.792 0.953 0.953
0.983
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N -S STREET: Suitana Ave
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 9/13/2005
DAY: TUESDAY
LOCATION: City of Temple City
PROJECT# 05-2347-004
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 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
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
27
42
70
12
24
64
22
1293
13
127
2759
17
4470
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 18 28 40
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
CONTROL:
0,694
5 14 40 1
13 752 6
0.776 0.901
65 1370 8 2359
0.970 0.929
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N -S STREET: Sultana Ave
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 9/13/2005
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
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
36 25 35
1 1
60 2681 96 64 1856 26
1
5004
1
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 17 7 38
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
CONTROL:
0.912
16 16 17 1
32 1416 50 39 990 19 2657
1
0.533 0.925 0.891 0.946
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N -S STREET: Endnita
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 9/13/2005 LOCATION: City of Temple City
DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 05-2317-005
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
TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR
VOLUMES = 157 126 90 27 110 89
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 72 63 57
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.889
CONTROL:
16 71 51
0.678
EL ET ER WL WT WR
23 1304 44 64 2048 30
14 839 30
0.772
10
1183 21
0.876
TOTAL
4112
2460
0.875
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N -S STREET: Endnita
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
LANES:
DATE: 9/13/2005
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
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 = 76 61 63 21 91 35 22 1534 57 52 979 10
0.746 1
0735 0.781
.
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.789
CONTROL:
3001
0.779
ATTACHMENT B
June 2009 Traffic Count Data Sheets
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Rosemead Blvd DATE: 06/10/2009 LOCATION: City of Temple City
DAY: WEDNESDAY
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5
E -W STREET: Longden Ave
LANES:
PROJECT# 09-5230-001
6:OO 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
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
56
2095
101
127
1766
70
88
277
88
134
416
93
5311.
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM
PEAK
1 VOLUMES = 30 1106 59 83 929 52 49 162 48 1 79 222 58 2879
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
0.865 0.937 0.744 0.880 0.901
CONTROL: Signalized
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET:
E -W STREET:
Rosemead Blvd
Longden Ave
DATE: 06/10/2009
DAY: WEDNESDAY
LOCATION: City of Temple City
PROJECT# 09-5230-001
LANES:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
NL NT
1 2
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NR SL ST SR EL ET
0 1 2 0 0 1
ER WL WT WR TOTAL
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
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
11
12
14
10
17
17
10
14
288
280
284
299
286
295
283
319
19
16
21
19
18
23
20
19
34
18
34
37
38
38
30
41
284
307
352
313
321
354
323
328
8
9
13
11
16
9
13
15
19
4
11
15
24
18
16
10
51
45
51
61
63
57
68
61
16
16
9
10
7
14
14
17
18
17
15
15
15
15
20
14
50
36
51
34
38
49
45
42
9
16
10
12
19
15
8
14
807
776
865
836
862
904
850
894
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL ST SR
EL ET ER
WL WT WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
105
2334
155
270 2582 94
I 1
117 457 103
1
129 345 103
6794
1
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
CONTROL:
58 1183
0.938
Signalized
80 147 1326 53 68 249 52 64 174 56 3510
0.951
0.941
0.930 0.971
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Rosemead Blvd DATE: 06/10/2009 LOCATION: City of Temple City
E -W STREET: Elm Ave DAY: WEDNESDAY
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
LANES:
PROJECT# 09-5230-002
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
I 1
2 0 85
0
0
2
1
5637
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 15 1406 1
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
0.974
CONTROL: 2 -Way Stop (E/W)
2 1399 32
0.950
1 0 55
0.737
0 0 21
2913
0.250 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
1 2055 23
1 0 22
1
0 0 3
1
4292
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES =1 9 1160 1 1 1105 16 0 0 16 0 0
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.863 0.967 0.500 0.375
CONTROL: 2 -Way Stop (E/W)
2311
0.919
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N-5 STREET: Rosemead Blvd
E -W STREET: E.35 Tunas Dr
DATE: 06/10/2009 LOCATION: City of Temple Qty
DAY: WEDNESDAY PRO3ECT# 09-52304)03
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR 51 ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB U•Tums SB U -Turns EB U•Tums WB U -Turns
LANES: 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 3 1 2 3 1
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM 34 210 11 9 188 14 20 37 14 29 120 16 702 0 0 1 0
7:15 AM 39 191 9 14 192 27 26 55 22 30 244 21 870 0 1 3 2
7:30 AM 61 224 12 17 186 39 26 78 11 31 229 22 938 1 1 0 2
7:45 AM 57 233 17 27 181 45 30 94 19 32 278 32 1045 0 0 1 1
8:00 AM 75 257 24 43 210 37 45 113 10 35 254 38 1141 1 2 5 0
8:15 AM 79 216 23 37 194 34 23 124 I4 38 278 38 1098 1 0 0 1
8:30 AM 54 182 24 35 223 46 40 115 30 30 212 34 1025 0 2 3 1
8:45 AM 61 202 22 23 199 32 26 100 30 47 216 27 985 1 0 0 1
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
VOLUMES a 460 1715 142 205 1575 274
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES a 1265 888 88 1 142 808 162
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.87I 0.914
CONTROL: Signalled
I EL FT FR WL WT WR TOTAt NB U•Turns 5B U-Tums EB U -Turns WB U -Turns
236 716 150 272 1831 228 7804 4 6 13 8
136 446 73 1 135 1022 142 4309
1
0.888 0.917 0.944
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N•S STREET: Rosemead BivO
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 066/10/2009 LOCATION: Gty of Temple Cty
DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 09-5230-003
LANES:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR 51 5T SR EL E7 ER W[. WT WR TOTAL NB U Tams 5B U•Tums ES U•Tums WB U•Tums
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 51 234 42 58 253 31 63 233 44 55 156 39 1259 5 1 5 1
4:15 PM 53 213 40 54 233 37 71 191 50 52 140 32 1166 7 2 I1 2
4:30 PM 59 220 3I 61 290 36 66 252 60 46 98 46 1265 0 3 6 0
4:45 PM 56 247 39 35 242 37 74 244 38 40 142 36 1230 2 2 5 2
5:00 PM 63 239 35 64 267 32 80 232 53 56 161 37 1319 3 4 10 2
5:15 PM 57 251 33 48 299 27 78 269 56 51 191 37 1397 7 1 2 1
5:30 PM 63 234 32 73 304 45 85 256 61 50 179 28 1410 1 2 2 2
5:45 PM 64 236 31 68 253 25 69 229 52 42 188 38 1295 2 2 0 0
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
TOTAL NL NT NR
VOLUMES 466 1874 283
PEAK
VOLUMES a 1 247 960 131 1253 1123 129 1312 986 222 1199 719 140 5421
1 I
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
SL ST SR 7 ER WL WT WR TOTAL 461 2141 270 586 1906 414 392 1255 293 10341 INB a 27 Turns SB lI 37 rn, EB U 41rns WB U 0ums
1
PM Peak Hr Begins 21: 500 PM
0.981 0.892 0.943 0.948 0.961
CONTROL: Sagna6led
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Rosemead Blvd
E -W STREET: Broadway
DATE: 06/10/2009 LOCATION: City o6 Temple City
DAY: WEDNESDAY PRO)ECT# 09-5230-004
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL EB U-Tums WB U -Turns
LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
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 AM 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 41 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 NL NT NR 5L ST SR
VOLUMES = 257 2125 106 129 1727 89
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM
EL ET ER
87 349 252
WL WT WR TOTAL f EB U•Turns WB U Turns
148 521 163 I 5953 3 26
PEAK
VOLUMES = 140 1103 70 85 874 47 58 225 142 76 253 103 3176
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.857 0.931 0.871 0.931 0.957
CONTROL: Signalized
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Rosemead Blvd
E -W STREET: Broadway
DATE: 06/10/2009 LOCATION: Oty of Temple Qty
DAY: WEDNESDAY PRO3ECT# 09-5230-004
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL 5T SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL EB U -Turns WB U-Tums
LANES: 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
4:15 PM 42 280 17 24 310 25 21 69 30 11
4:30 PM 38 310 29 22 343 17 18 87 39 11
4:45 PM 40 291 24 25 302 17 18 100 31 11
5:00 PM 12 341 21 24 314 19 17 97 38 12
5:15 PM 48 299 19 36 336 25 25 120 30 9
5:30 PM 64 296 32 29 356 18 23 102 26 16
5:45 PM 52 289 29 31 317 23 12 133 35 10
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
:g8Sg88Vgi
19 889 1 9
14 897 0 6
12 976 1 6
14 923 0 5
18 1009 0 6
24 1037 0 7
22 1044 1 10
17 1022 0 6
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
PEAK
1 VOLUMES = 206 1225 101 120 1323 85 77 452 129 47 266 81
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.948 0.948 0-914 0.975
NL NT NR
367 2406 198
SL ST SR
214 2577 163
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM
EL ET ER
158 773 262
WL WT WR
87 452 140
CONTROL: Signalized
TOTAL
7797
4112
0.985
EB U -Turns WB U-Tums
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 PROJECT# 09-5230-005
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL EB U-Tums WB U-Tums
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 8 364 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 SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR
VOLUMES = 222 119 47 92 70 213 124 1012 53 1 41 2440 104
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM
TOTAL l EB U -Turns WB U-Tums
4537
PEAK
VOLUMES = 196 91 33 1 45 43 97 87 569 44 25 1394 51 2675
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.816 0.856 0.902 0.921 0,921
CONTROL: Signalized
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 or Temple City
DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 09-5230-005
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WI 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 8 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 NL NT NR SL 5T SR
VOLUMES = 74 110 86 119 108 162
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM
EL ET ER
182 2766 77
WL WT WR
70 1832 224
TOTAL
5810
PEAK
VOLUMES = 40 74 45 74 59 91 86 1434 41 33 972 132 3081
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.924 0.767 0.956 0.967 0.951
CONTROL: Signalized
IEB U -Turns WB U -Turns
3 29
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Sultana Ave DATE: 06/10/2009 LOCATION: City of Temple City
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr DAY: WEDNESDAY
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 0
PRO]ECT# 09-5230-006
6:OO AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM 5 0 11 0 3 4 2 55 2 7 162 1 252
7:15 AM 6 0 10 0 1 6 1 79 3 5 284 0 395
7:30 AM 8 0 11 1 3 8 3 98 3 5 270 0 410
7:45 AM 8 6 8 2 3 9 0 132 2 3 326 0 499
8:00 AM 8 4 11 0 6 10 2 176 11 12 307 1 548
8:15 AM 12 9 5 4 5 16 1 177 6 17 328 0 580
8:30 AM 5 3 7 1 3 4 2 159 7 2 267 2 462
8:45 AM 8 2 9 1 3 11 2 145 4 8 268 2 463
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
VOLUMES = 60 24 72 9 27 68
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 33 22 31 7 17 39
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.827 0,630
CONTROL: Signalized
EL ET ER
13 1021 38
5 644 26
0.893
WL WT WR
59 2212 6
34 1228 3
0.917
TOTAL
3609
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 4
0 2
3 8
5 3
3 0
6 3
9 5
11 6
11
14
11
14
9
7
20
16
0 1
2 4
3 3
1 4
1 4
1 2
1 1
0 2
6 3 318
6 4 276
3 7 313
5 8 305
2 4 322
11 6 332
3 9 337
2 6 313
7
11
21
11
12
15
17
14
11 237
8 223
12 188
5 209
14 255
12 261
10 247
11 253
2 607
1 551
2 574
7 577
2 628
1 657
3 662
1 635
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL WT WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
44
31
102
9
21
38
47
2516
108
1
83 1873 19
1
4891
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
29 14 52
0.699
CONTROL: Signalized
3 9 18 25 1304 58 47 1016 7
0.536
0.955
0.976
2582
0.975
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
N -S STREET: Encinita Ave
E -W STREET: Las Tunas Dr
DATE: 06/10/2009 LOCATION: City of Temple City
DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 09-5230-007
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM 7 20 20 2 8 5 5 58 0 4 164 2 295
7:15 AM 19 14 6 1 17 6 0 82 0 11 248 1 405
7:30 AM 16 12 8 1 12 7 0 107 3 7 238 1 412
7:45 AM 19 35 17 3 23 14 0 127 6 11 281 1 537
8:00 AM 16 62 29 6 32 7 3 144 7 15 293 2 616
8:15 AM 18 30 22 5 44 11 2 192 4 13 309 6 656
8:30 AM 13 26 6 10 19 8 1 156 11 18 236 3 507
8:45 AM 11 15 10 6 6 10 0 144 5 11 254 1 473
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 =
119
214
118
34 161 68
1
11 1010 36
1
90 2023 17
1
3901
1
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM
PEAK
1 VOLUMES = 66 153 74 24 118 40
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.685 0.758
CONTROL: Signalized
6 619 28 57 1119 12 2316
0.824 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 LOCATION: City of Temple City
DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 09-5230-007
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 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 15 15 18 2 20 11 6 289 13 15 237 3 644
4:15 PM 16 15 15 4 11 8 6 280 10 6 198 1 570
4:30 PM 11 22 13 2 16 4 2 287 10 15 200 2 584
4:45 PM 10 11 26 5 11 10 4 323 8 11 194 0 613
5:00 PM 16 20 14 4 16 11 6 297 7 7 242 1 641
5:15 PM 13 20 19 9 20 6 0 310 16 6 246 4 669
5:30 PM 16 21 19 6 19 6 2 317 14 14 233 2 669
5:45 PM 8 26 18 10 22 8 2 325 10 13 235 3 680
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
150
142
42
135
64
28
2428
88
87
1785
16
5070
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 53 87 70 29 77 31 10 1249 47
PEAK HR.
FACTOR:
0.938 0.856 0.969
CONTROL: Signalized
956 10 1
2659
0.982 0.978
ATTACHMENT C
September 2009 & January 2011
Traffic Count Data Sheets
DATE:
9/15/09
TUESDAY
NOTES:
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES
LOCATION: TEMPLE CITY PROJECT #: CA09.0918.3
NORTH & SOUTH: ROSEMEAD LOCATION #: 1
EAST & WEST: LAS TUNAS CONTROL: SIGNAL,
U-TURNS ARE INCLUDED IN LEFT TURNS.
11.9
•N
W E
•
NORTHBOUND
RosD4EAn
SOUTHBOUND
a05EM AD
EASTBOUND
LAS MAYAS
WESTBOUND
LAS TUNAS
`
LANES:
NL
2
NT
2
NR
0
SL
2
ST
2
SR
0
EL
2
ET
3
`
ER
1
WL
2
WT
3
WR
1
TOTAL
z
4
7:00 AM
37
177 1
10
11
186
17
20
50
21
36
199
18
782
7:15 AM
48
201
6
24
35
216
14
30
58
25
37
211
14
884
7:30 AM
50
237
16
243
26
34
67
22
43
225
23
1,021
7:45 AM
63
214
7
40
179
27
39
119
17
30
255
43
1,033
8:00 AM
70
257
13
43
203
40
53
130
29
47
246
36
1,167
B:15 AM
77
249
19
28
175
38
43
131
22
47
292
39
1,160
8:30 AM
69
183
19
30
172
29
49
119
23
34
228
29
984
8:45 AM
33
140
16
30
195
27
34
110
15
53
190
22
865
VOLUMES
APPROACH %
447 1,658 106
20% 75% 5%
241 1,569 218
12% 77% 11%
302 784 174
24% 62% 14%
327 1,846 224
14% 77% 9%
' 7;896
APP/DEPART
2,211 / 2,184
Z028 / 2,070
1,260 / 1,131
2,397 / 2,511
0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES
APPROACH %
PEAK HR FACTOR
7:30 AM
260 957 55
20% 75% 4%
0.922
146 B00 131
14% 74% 12%
0.886
169 447 90
24% 63% 13%
0.833
167 1,018 141
13% 77% 11%
0.877
4,381
0.939
APP/DEPART
1,272 1 1,267
1,077 / 1,057
706 / 648
1,326 / 1,409
0
I PM
4:00 PM
56
170
32
31
252 i 33
62
186
45
49
146
17
1 079
4:15 PM
52
176
37
48
241 4
299
26
70
187
51
40
109
128
1
11
23
1,048
1,152
4:30 PM
63
186
27
44
22
77
201
39
43 _
4:45 PM
70
230
28
45
#
265 I 31
82
215
49
51
140
15
1,221
5:00 PM
71
212
26
56
284 32
66
235
36
44
131
26
1,219
5:15 PM
79
209
38
48
252 , 30
71
239
45
48
136
24
1,219
5:30 PM
78
202
40
46
308 t 29
83
242
45
57
142
20
1,292
5:45 PM
66
166
30
64
269 _ 34
79
256
55
37
156
23
1,235
VOLUMES
APPROACH %
535 1,551 258
23% 66% 11%
382 2,170 237
14% 78% 8%
590 1,761 365
22% 65% 13%
369 1,088 159
23% 67% 10%
9,465
APP/DEPART
2,344 1 2,300
2,789 1 2,904
2,716 / 2,401
1,616 / 1,860
0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES
APPROACH %
PEAK HR FACTOR
5:00 PM
294 789 134
24% 65% 11%
0.933
214 1,113 125
15% 77% 9%
0.948
299 972 181
21% 67% 12%
0.931
186 565 93
22% 67% 11%
0.963
4,965
0.961
'APP/DEPART
1,217 / 1,181
1,452 / 1,480
1,452 / 1,320
844 / 984
0
U-TURNS
NB
x
SB
x
EB
x
WB
x
TTL
0
2
4 0
6
1
1
0
1
3
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
4
0
4
0
0
9
2
11
2
0
1
2
5
1
2
6 2
11
1
0
1
0
6
5
26
7
2
2
9 2
15
1
3
9
2
15__
2 -
2
8
2
14
3
1
5
5
14
1
2
10
1
14
1
1
2
1
5
3
4
3
1
11
2
2
2
0
6
15
17
48 [14
94
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES
DATE:
LOCATION: TEMPLE CITY PROJECT #: CA11-0121-04
1/20/11
THURSDAY
NORTH & SOUTH: ROSEMEAD LOCATION #: 1
EAST & WEST: LAS TUNAS CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES:
rs_.
. ' 1
,
N
I.:,
4
E►
-ter;
5
WESTBOUND
LAS TUNAS
NORTHBOUND
R.DSEl& L1
SoLITi 130LIND
EASTBOUND
LAS TUNAS
LANES:
NL
2
NT
2
NR
0
51,_
2
_____ _
ST
2
5R
0
EL
1
ET ER
3 1
WL
1
WT
3
WR
1
TOTAL
5'30 AM
0
5:45 AM
0
6:00 AM
0
6:15 AM
0
6:30 AM
0
6:45 AM
0
7:00 AM
21
166
22
49
152
4
18
35
19
32
193
22
733
7:15 AM
36
177
27
50
153
5
28
34
13
33
211
11
778
7:30 AM
40
202
23
75
155
5
34
61
21
25
309
16
969
7:45 AM
52
176
39
67
165
13
34
79
25
19
238
9
916
8:00 AM
73
214
41
48 168
14
_
49
153
_
40
42
308
29
1,179
8:15 AM
_
75
216
48
52
180
11
_
36
127
38
45
347
45
1,220
8:30 AM
68
175
43
52
132
7
31
94
22
35
305
19
983
8:45 AM
65
179
33
74
130
11
34
90
30
27
203
14
890
9:00 AM
0
9:15 AM
0
9:30 AM
0
9:45 AM
0
10:00 AM
0
10:15 AM
0
VOLUMES
APPROACH %
430 1,505 276
19% 68% 12%
467 1,235 70
26% 70% 4%
264 676 208
23% 59% 18%
258
10%
2,114
83%
165
7%
7,668
APP/DEPART
2,211 / 1,934
1,772 / 1,701
1,148 / 1,419
2,537
/
2,614
0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES
APPROACH %
PEAK HR FACTOR
7:45 AM
268 781 171
22% 64% 14%
0.900
219 645 45
24% 71% 5%
0.928
150 453 125
21% 62% 17%
0.752
141
10%
1,198
83%
0.824
102
7%
4,298
0.881
APP/DEPART
1,220 / 1,033
909 / 911
728 / 843
1_
/
1,511
0
2:30 PM
0
2:45 PM
�0
3:00 PM
0
3:15 PM
0
3:30 PM
0
3:45 PM _
0
4:00 PM
55
210
39
53
149
26
65
201
41
64
147
23
1,073
4:15 PM
39
211
25
70
174
36
67
219
64
51
138
22
1,116
4:30 PM
40
193
28
74
213
30
57
215
50
49
141
10
1,100
4:45 PM
48
183
30
80
230
24
48
218
45
48
144
7
1,105
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
29
_ 73
248
54
70
148
7
1,199
5:30 PM
47
207
14
64
203
37
58
251
_
60
47
151
12
1
1,151
5:45 PM
44
210
10
61
212
35
62
245
55
61
150
11
1,156
6:00 PM
0
6:15 PM
0
6:30 PM
0
6:45 PM
_
0
7:00 PM
_
0
7:15 PM
-
0
VOLUMES
APPROACH %
-APP/DEPART
356 1,648 168
16% 76% 8%
564 1,597 251
23% 66% 10%
479 1,853 427
17% 67% 15%
455 1,181 112
26% 68% 6%
9,091
2,172 / 2,239 ,
2,412 / 2,479
2,759 / 2,585
242 1,000 227
16% 68% 15%
0.979
1,748 f 1,788
0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES
APPROACH %
PEAK HR FACTOR
5:00 PM
174 851 46
16% 79% 4%
0.988
287 831 135
23% 66% 11%
0.946
243 611 50
27% 68% 6%
0.915
4,697
0.979
APP/DEPART _
1,071 / 1,143
1,253 / 1,301
1,469 / 1,333
904 / 920
0
ATTACHMENT D
Study Intersection Total Volume Calculations
STUD
Intereecpon
l
Rosemead Blvd!
Longden Ave
2
Rosemead Blvd!
Elm Ave
3
Rosemead Blvd/
Les Tunas Dr
4
Rosemead Blvd!
Broadway
5
Mimesis, Ave/
Las Tunas Dr
6
Sultana Ave!
Las Tunas Dr
7
Encinrtaf
Las Tunas Dr
T In I t1 t1. 1 IUN 10I AL TRAFFIC VOLUME CALCULATIONS
(SEPTEMBER
2005 -vs- 2009/2011 DATA)
TIME
YEAR
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL_
AM
PM
2005
70
1366
55
BB
1138
56
50
159
_
52
79
250
49
3412
67
1206
S00
133
1316
55
41
261
46
60
150
47
3484
AM
2009
30
1108
59
83
929
52
49
162
_
48
79
222
58
_
2879
PM
58
1183
80
147
1326
53
68
249
52
64
174
56
3510
AM
2005
12
1669
4
11
1305
7
3
0
5
0
1
4
3021
PM
25
1494
11
49
1569
19
1
0
48
0
0
11
3227
AM
2409
9
1160
1
1
1105
16
0
0
16
0
0
3
2311
PM
15
1406
1
2
1399
32
1
0
55
0
0
2
2913
AM
PM
2005
333
1177
85
132
1011
167 _
341
580
135
164
1097
167
5389
294
1014
155
243
1267
95
382
1041
207
228
630
129
5885
AM
PM
.tun -09
267
888
88
146
808
162
147
446
73
138
_
1022
142
4327
260
960
131
_ 262
1123
129
326
986
222
204
719
140
5462
AM
Sep 09
260
957
55
146
800
131
169
447
90
_
167
1019
141
4381 —
PM
264
789
134
214
1113
125
299
972
181
186
565
93
4965
AM
2011
268
781
171
219
645
45
150
453
125
_
141
1198
102
_
4298
_ PM
174
851
46
287
831
135
242
1000
227
243
611
50
4697
AM
2005
276
1368
63
98
1159
68
80
255
_
248
119
432
121
4267
PM
176
1196
74
192
1448
93
74
425
147
55
291
137
430a
AM
2009
140
1103
70
95
874
47
61
225
142
94
253
103
3197
PM
206
1225
101
120
1323
85
78
452
129
76
266
81
4142
AM
2005
S60
85
89
65
79
94
41
632
197
54
1208
26
2730
PM
40
66
69
65
96
64
64
1567
37
63
923
100
3174
AM
2009
196
91
33
45
43
97
97
569
44
25
1394
51
2685
PM
40
74
45
74
59
91
67
1434
752
41
6
47
65
972
1370
132
B
3096
2359
AM
2005
18
28
40
5
14
40
13
PM
17
7
38
16
16
17
32
1416
50
39
990
19
2657
AM
2009
33
22
31
7
17
39
5
644
26
34
1220
3
2089
PM
29
14
52
_ 3
9
18
25
1304
58
47
1016
7
2562
AM
2005
72
63
57
16
74
51
14
839
30
40
1183
21
2460
PM
76
61
63
21
91
35
22
1534
57
52
979
10
3001
AM
2009
66
153
74
24
118
40
6
619
28
57
1119
12
2316
PM
53
87
70
29
77
31
10
1249
47
40
956
10
2659
r