Loading...
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