Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout17) 9A Olson ProjectCity Council January 7, 2014 Page 2 of 8 e) Introduce Ordinance No. 14-988 (Attachment "D") for first reading by title only, changing the zoning on the project site from the Heavy Manufacturing (M-2) Zoning District to the R-2 Zoning District and the lnfill Community (IC) Overlay Zoning District, and waive further reading; f) Adopt Resolution No. 14-4962 (Attachment "E") approving the Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review to construct 74 residential units; g) Introduce Ordinance No. 14-989 (Attachment "F") approving a Development Agreement (Attachment "G") between the City and the project applicant, Land Opportunities, LLC; and h) Schedule the second reading of Ordinances No. 14-981, 14-988, and 14-989 for January 21, 2013. BACKGROUND: 1. On July 1, 2013, the applicant submitted the application for File No. 130000091, a 74 unit single-family attached and detached residential project located at 9250 Lower Azusa Road. 2. On September 6, 2013, the tentative maps prepared for the project were distributed to City Land Development/Engineering Division and other relevant public and private agencies for review and comments. 3. On November 15, 2013, the application was deemed complete. 4. On November 18, 2013, the Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the Temple City Tribune. 5. On November 19, 2013, the Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted at the Los Angeles County Clerk Office. 6. On November 20, 2013, the comment period for the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment "H") began and it ended on December 10, 2013. 7. On November 26, 2013, notice of the December 10, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing was provided to property owners within 300 feet of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. Due to an error in the notice, a revised notice was mailed on December 3, 2013. 8. On November 28, 2013, notice of the December 10, 2013 Planning Commission City Council January 7, 2014 Page 3 of 8 public hearing on was published in the Temple City Tribune. Due to an error in the notice, a revised notice was published on December 5, 2013. 9. On December 10, 2013 the public review period for the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ended. The Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing to review the project. The Planning Commission voted in favor of the project and made the recommendation to the City Council to approve File No. 130000091 and Ordinance No. 14-981. 10. On December 19, 2013, the notice of the City Council public hearing on January 7, 2014 was published in the Temple City Tribune. 11. On December 20, 2013, the notice of the City Council public hearing on January 7, 2014 was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. Mailing of the notice for the public hearing satisfied the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091. ANALYSIS: The Olson Land Opportunities, LLC (applicant) is proposing a 74-unit single-family attached and detached residential project at 9250 Lower Azusa Road. The project entails the approval of seven different planning applications: a General Plan Amendment; creation of an Overlay Zoning District; a Zone Change; a Tentative Tract Map; a Conditional Use Permit; a Site Plan Review; and a Development Agreement. The project proposes to subdivide two parcels to create 74 single-family lots with common ownership of streets and recreational areas. The subdivision is proposed at an R-2 density (12 dwelling units/acre of the net developable lot size). The property is currently zoned for Industrial uses and requires a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to allow the residential use. The project is located at the southern most portion of the City on Lower Azusa Road between the Eaton Wash and the Union Pacific Railroad. The site is zoned M-2 and is located in an area surrounded by both industrial and single-family residential development. The most recent business to occupy the project site was United Lumber, an old lumber mill, which ceased operations in 2009. The project site is large but has numerous constraints, including the site dimensions and adjacent uses. Due to the physical site constraints, inquiries to develop the site for industrial uses and public storage have never developed to the point where an application has been submitted. The proposed project would improve the site and provide the City with creatively designed housing at prices that are affordable to homebuyers. The Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment "I") provides a detailed analysis of City Council January 7, 2014 Page 4 of 8 the project including site planning, architecture, engineering, and zoning requirements. In addition, the major issues for the project are analyzed below: General Plan Amendment The current land use designation of the project site is Industrial and does not permit the development of residential uses. A General Plan Amendment is required to permit the proposed project. The proposed project would change the land use designation of the project site from Industrial to Medium Density Residential. This change would allow the project to be consistent with the City's General Plan. Zone Change & lnfill Community (IC) Overlay Zoning District The project is designed to be at a density that meets the requirements of the R-2 Zoning District However, due to the sites physical constraints, the project is unable to meet all the requirements of the R-2 Zoning District Rather than go through a variance process to address the zoning requirements, staff is proposing the creation of an lnfill Community (IC) overlay zoning district that provides flexibility on sites with physical constraints. The IC overlay zoning district establishes standards of development designed to permit medium and high density development but allows some flexibility to design guidelines and development standards including floor area ratio, height limits, open space, or parking, etc. The IC overlay district is intended for physically constrained sites that are not part of an existing residential neighborhood, so Ordinance No. 14-981 also establishes applicability standards to ensure the IC overlay zoning district is not used to evade development standards in existing residential neighborhoods. In addition, except as provided by the development standards of the IC overlay zoning District, projects must comply with standards of the underlying zoning district As discussed further in the subsection "Planning Commission Discussion", a comment was received from a property owner in the manufacturing area across the Eaton Wash during the public comment period of the December 10th Planning Commission hearing. The comment raised questions about the compatibility of the project and existing industrial uses. The City Council is requested to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 14-988 which makes the physical zone change for the site from the Heavy Industrial (M-2) Zoning District to the R-2 Zoning District and the lnfill Community (IC) Overlay Zoning District. Project Design The project was creatively designed to work within the physical constraints of the site. The project concept is based on clusters of homes. To provide a variety of housing City Council January 7, 2014 Page 5 of 8 styles and types, a variety of plan types and architectural elevations are utilized. In addition, each individual block contains a mix of attached and detached units, providing architectural interest and variation. The proposed project is designed as a gated community with a combination of wrought- iron fencing and concrete block walls to shelter the community from the adjacent Eaton Wash and Union Pacific Railroad. The project is divided into 15 blocks in three different block arrangements. Each block has either 5 or 6 units. Every fourth block has 5 units with a pocket park. The community has one main road with access driveways off of the main road. Each unit has independent vehicular access to a garage and pedestrian access to the main entrance. Two parking spaces within a garage is provided per unit and a total of 70 guest spaces are provided as parallel parking along the main street. The proposed lots range from 1,400 square feet to 2,365 square feet. The units are all two stories and range from 1,410 square feet to 2,168 square feet of living space. Five model floor plans are used and adapted to create assorted unit design. The units are designed to resemble "California Spanish" style of architecture, and utilize design elements and articulation to add visual interest at a pedestrian scale. Eight matching earth tone color schemes are also planned to accentuate single-family character. The proposed project also has amenities and infrastructure throughout the site. Three pocket parks are provided throughout the project site and open space is provided at the entrance. The pocket parks provide for different types of experiences, both passive and active, to give residents a variety of recreational opportunities. Four fire hydrants are provided equidistant on the main street, and catch basins are located throughout the site to treat stormwater runoff prior to draining into the Eaton Wash. The sewer system for the project connects to a mainline on Temple City Boulevard, via the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Development Agreement A Development Agreement (Agreement) has been drafted as a contract between the applicant and the City to specify the standards and conditions that will govern development of the property. The Agreement benefits both the City and applicant in that it protects the project's entitlement and applicant investment and also includes conditions required by the City. The Agreement includes development impact fees (Exhibit "D") imposed by the City including an affordable housing fee of $157,000; a park fee of $168,000; $200,000 for public art which is comprised of a public art fee of $150,000 and an in-kind art installation on the proposed sound wall valued up to $50,000; and a sewer reconstruction fee of $74,000. The total value of the agreement is $599,000. The Agreement also clarifies terms of entitlement and contract termination and extension, which sets the targeted date of Final Tract Map recordation at 30 months following the effective date. The City Council is requested to adopt Ordinance No. 14-989 in order to City Council January 7, 2014 Page 6 of 8 approve the Draft Development Agreement. Environmental Assessment Consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed development. Staff has determined that this project has "less than significant" environmental impacts with mitigation measures incorporated. The Initial Study identified several areas with potential impacts in the Draft MND. They are: Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Cultural Resources, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Geology & Soils, Hydrology & Water Quality, Noise, and Traffic. Those impacts are addressed through mitigation measures that occur throughout the the planning and construction of the project. Detailed analysis of the various mitigation measures are contained in the attached MND The review period for the Initial Study and Draft MND began on November 20, 2013 and ended on December 10, 2013. Staff received one comment letter from South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Those comments are addressed in the Response to Comments that are incorporated into the Final MND. The Planning Commission reviewed the MND and the proposed mitigation measures and found that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment with the mitigation measures incorporated, and therefore, recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment "J"). Planning Commission Discussion At the Planning Commission Meeting of December 10, 2013, the Planning Commission raised several issues and subsequently recommended approval of the project with the condition that the City Council staff report explains the concerns that were brought up during the public hearing. Of the issues and questions that were mentioned during the Planning Commission meeting on December 10, 2013, the most frequent of the topics surround site access, circulation, and traffic impact. Because of the project density, the Commissioners agreed that the project would benefit from a second exit and entrance off of Temple City Boulevard. When asked about exploring the option of expanding the project to connect with Temple City Boulevard, the applicant disclosed that the property at the east end of the project (APN 8592-005-005, 8592-005-006, 8592-005-007) is owned by different owner and that they had looked into acquiring the parcel, but that the owner was not interested in selling it to the Olson Company. Staff further clarified that the property is located within the City of El Monte and that owner of the other property has plans to use it as a private bus storage facility. City Council January 7, 2014 Page 7 of 8 The Fire Department has approved the project plans and made no requirement for a second exit and entrance. While a connection to Temple City Boulevard would improve site access, it is not currently feasible to create such a connection. There was also a suggestion to cover over the Eaton Wash as an option to improve site access and circulation by making a connection to Gidley Street. This option was not considered or evaluated as part of the MND. In addition, the project would require approvals and permits from the Army Corp of Engineers and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. This option would dramatically complicate the project planning and permitting phase and increase the project budget. Many concerns were also raised over the traffic that would be generated at the entrance to the project on Lower Azusa Road. There was discussion over how the trips generation counts were derived since they seemed low. Trip generation rate are based on standard calculation methods from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The projected 430 daily trips, including 33 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 39 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour, are consistent with similar sized projects of this type. Additional concerns were raised over the sight lines exiting the community due to the higher grading at the Eaton Wash. This issue was analyzed in the project's Traffic Impact Study (TIS) which showed an adequate line-of-sight to have safe turning movement in and out of the site. In addition, staff observed that the entrance for the proposed project is located at the highest elevation point on Lower Azusa Road and confirmed the Traffic Study's conclusion that there are adequate sight lines. Commissioners also recommended more conditions for the City to enforce potential traffic mitigation measures from the developer should they become necessary in the future. The potential measures include a two-way turn lane on Lower Azusa Road and a traffic signal. However, the TIS shows no justification for utilizing a two-way turn lane and/or traffic signal at the entrance. Therefore, based on State Law and applicable case law, staff cannot include open-ended or unjustifiable conditions on the project. Finally, a notable concern raised by the public during the Planning Commission meeting regarded the perceived incompatibility of the residential project to existing industrial uses across the Eaton Wash. Staff has considered the potential impacts to existing uses and potential of future development within the industrial area and concluded that the project would have little to no impact on primary uses which are by-right within the M-2 zone. All future uses and development within the industrial area are subject to development standards contained within the Zoning Code which are not changed by this project. City Council January 7, 2014 Page 8 of 8 CONCLUSION: Given that the project site has remained vacant in the past four years and previous plans to use the site for public storage were unsuccessful, the proposed project is creatively designed to take into account the physical constraints of the site. It has a high quality architectural variety which is complemented by its landscape architecture. In addition, the onsite amenities provide a variety of opportunities for residents. The Development Agreement also requires the applicant to contribute $549,000 to the City for affordable housing, parks and public art, which will allow the city to provide greater services to our residents. After careful consideration, the Planning Commission determined that the overall improvement to the property and benefit to the community outweighs the concerns and, therefore, recommended approval of the project FISCAL IMPACT: As part of the approval of the Development Agreement, the applicant will contribute to the City budget $157,000 for affordable housing, $168,000 for park development, $150,000 for public art and $74,000 for sewer reconstruction totaling $549,000 in the form of impact fees. ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution No. 14-4959 B. Resolution No. 14-4961 C. Ordinance No. 14-981 D. Ordinance No. 14-988 E. Resolution No. 14-4962 F. Ordinance No. 14-989 G. Development Agreement H. Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration I. Planning Commission Staff Report J. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program K. Project Plans ATTACHMENT A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 14-4959 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY TO APPROVE THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A 74-UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 9250 LOWER AZUSA ROAD (FILE NO. 130000091). SECTION 1. The City Council has considered all of the evidence submitted into the administrative record which includes but is not limited to: 1. Reports and presentations of project related data and analysis prepared by the Community Development Department; and 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and all other supporting environmental documentation and technical studies; 3. The Temple City Municipal Code, General Plan, and all other applicable regulations and codes; and 4. Public comments, both written and oral, received or submitted prior to the public hearing, supporting or opposing the applicant's request; and 5. Testimony and comments submitted by the applicant and representatives in both written and oral form at or prior to the public hearing; and 6. All other related documents received or submitted prior to the public hearing. SECTION 2. This resolution is made with reference to the following prefacing facts as more fully set forth in the administrative record: 1. On July 1, 2013, the applicant submitted the application. 2. On September 6, 2013, the tentative maps prepared for the project were distributed to City Land Development/Engineering Division and other relevant public and private agencies for review and comments. 3. On November 15, 2013, the application was deemed complete. 4. On November 18, 2013, the Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the local newspaper and on November 19, 2013, the notice was posted at the Los Angeles County Clerk Office. 5. The Public Review Period for the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) began November 20, 2013 and ended on December 10, 2013. The City received several questions via email from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Those questions have been addressed in the City Council of the City ofTemple City Resolution 14-4959 January 7, 2014 Final MND. Page 2 of 4 6. On November 26, 2013, notice of the December 10, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing was provided to property owners within 300 feet of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. Due to an error in the notice, a revised notice was also mailed on December 3, 2013. 7. On November 28, 2013, the notice of the Planning Commission public hearing on December 10, 2013 was published in the Temple City Tribune. Due to an error on the notice, a revised notice was also published on December 5, 2013. 8. On December 10, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing to review the project. The Planning Commission voted in favor of the project and made the recommendation to the City Council to approve File No. 130000091 and Ordinance No. 14-981. 9. On December 19, 2013, the notice of the City Council public hearing on January 7, 2014 was published in the Temple City Tribune. 10. On December 20, 2013, the notice of the City Council public hearing on January 7, 2014 was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. 11. Notice of the public hearing satisfied the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091. 12.The project is located at 9250 Lower Azusa Road and 4303 Temple City Boulevard. 13. The project site is zoned M-2, Heavy Manufacturing; and designated Industrial by the General Plan. 14. The project site has a total size of 10.8 acres. However, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District has a recorded easement on the property of 4.63 acres, which is known as the Eaton Wash. Therefore, the net developable area unencumbered by the easement, is 6.22 acres. 15. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the lot at R-2 density into 74 lots for single-family use. The project requires a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, and a Site Plan Review. The project also proposes a Development Agreement and creating a new lnfill Community (IC) Overlay Zoning District (Ordinance No. 14-981). SECTION 3. The City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative City Council of the City of Temple City Resolution 14-4959 January 7, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and in view of all of the evidence concludes that based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that with the proposed mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the findings as follows: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the City Council; and further, this City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP with regard to the application. 2. Based upon the design of proposed project and the mitigation measures incorporated, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. 3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the City Council finds that in considering the record as a whole, including the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and MMRP for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Furthermore, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, MMRP, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council during the public hearing, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) ofTitle 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 4. The City Council of the City of Temple City does hereby adopt the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. MAYOR I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, Resolution 14-4959 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 7th of January, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Councilmembers- Councilmembers - City Council of the City of Temple City Resolution 14-4959 January 7, 2014 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers - Councilmembers- Page 4 of 4 City Clerk ATTACHMENT B CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 14-4961 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY TO APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AT 9250 LOWER AZUSA ROAD (APN 8592-005-003, 8592-005-004) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM INDUSTRIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR A 74-UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (FILE NO. 130000091). SECTION 1. The City Council has considered all of the evidence submitted into the administrative record which includes but is not limited to: 1. Reports and presentations of project related data and analysis prepared by the Community Development Department; and 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and all other supporting environmental documentation and technical studies. 3. The Temple City Municipal Code, General Plan, and all other applicable regulations and codes; and 4. Public comments, both written and oral, received or submitted prior to the public hearing, supporting or opposing the applicant's request; and 5. Testimony and comments submitted by the applicant and representatives in both written and oral form at or prior to the public hearing; and 6. All other related documents received or submitted prior to the public hearing. SECTION 2. This resolution is made with reference to the following prefacing facts as more fully set forth in the administrative record: 1. On July 1, 2013, the applicant submitted the application. 2. On September 6, 2013, the tentative maps prepared for the project were distributed to City Land Development/Engineering Division and other relevant public and private agencies for review and comments. 3. On November 15, 2013, the application was deemed complete. 4. On November 18, 2013, the Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the local newspaper and on November 19, 2013, the notice was posted at the Los Angeles County Clerk Office. 5. On November 20, 2013, the public review period for the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration began. City Council of the City of Temple City Resolution 14-4961 January 7, 2014 Page 2 of 3 6. On November 26, 2013, notice of the December 10, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing was provided to property owners within 300 feet of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. Due to an error in the notice, a revised notice was also mailed on December 3, 2013. 7. On November 28, 2013, the notice of the Planning Commission public hearing on December 10, 2013 was published in the Temple City Tribune. Due to an error on the notice, a revised notice was also published on December 5, 2013. 8. On December 10, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing to review the project. The Planning Commission voted in favor of the project and made the recommendation to the City Council to approve File No. 130000091 and Ordinance No. 14-981. 9. On December 19,2013, the notice of the City Council public hearing on January 7, 2014 was published in the Temple City Tribune. 10. On December 20, 2013, the notice of the City Council public hearing on January 7, 2014 was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. 11. Notice of the public hearing satisfied the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091. 12. The project is located at 9250 Lower Azusa Road and 4303 Temple City Boulevard. 13. The project site is zoned M-2, Heavy Manufacturing; and designated Industrial by the General Plan. 14. The project site has a total size of 10.8 acres. However, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District has a recorded easement on the property of 4.63 acres, which is known as the Eaton Wash. Therefore, the net developable area unencumbered by the easement, is 6.22 acres. 15. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the lot at R-2 density into 74 lots for single-family use. The project requires a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, and a Site Plan Review. The project also proposes a Development Agreement and creating a new lnfill Community (IC) Overlay Zoning District (Ordinance No. 14-981). SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Temple City does hereby approve the General Plan Amendment at 9250 Lower Azusa Road (APN 8592-005-003, 8592-005- 004) to change the land use designation from Industrial to Medium Density Residential for a 7 4-unit single-family residential project (File No. 130000091 ). City Council of the City of Temple City Resolution 14-4961 January 7, 2014 Page 3 of 3 MAYOR I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, Resolution 14-4961 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 7th of January, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers- Councilmembers - Councilmembers - Councilmembers - City Clerk ATTACHMENT C ORDINANCE NO. 14-981 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY AMENDING THE TEMPLE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE RENAMING ARTICLE R, "RESIDENTIAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT, RPD" TO "RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICTS" AND TO CREATE AN INFILL COMMUNITY (IC) OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City council has considered all of the evidence submitted into the administrative record which includes but is not limited to: 1. Reports and presentations of project related data and analysis prepared by the Community Development Department for the December 10, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting; and the January 7, 2014 and January 21, 2014 City Council Meetings; 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and all other supporting environmental documentation and technical studies; 3. The Temple City Municipal Code, General Plan, and all other applicable regulations and codes; 4. Public comments, both written and oral, received or submitted prior to the public hearing, supporting or opposing the applicant's request; 5. Testimony and comments submitted by the applicant and representatives in both written and oral form at or prior to the public hearing; and 6. All other related documents received or submitted prior to the public hearing. SECTION 2. The City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and in view of all of the evidence concludes that based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that with the proposed mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP based upon the findings as follows: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the ORDINANCE 14-981 Zoning Code Amendment to create lnfill Community Overlay District Page 2 Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the City Council; and, further, this Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP with regard to the application. 2. Based upon the design of proposed project and the mitigation measures incorporated, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. 3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the City Council finds that in considering the record as a whole, including the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and MMRP for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Furthermore, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, MMRP, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission and the City Council during the public hearing, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 3. "Article 9.2 lnflll Community (IC) Overlay District" is hereby added to Title 9. Chapter 1. SECTION 4. Section 9449.1 through 9449.4 is hereby added to Title 9. Chapter 1. Article R.2 and shall read as follows: 9449.1: Purpose: The lnfill Community Overlay District is introduced to establish standards of development for medium and high density residential development at sites that are underutilized, vacant, or unimproved with essential physical infrastructure and are not part of an existing neighborhood. The site may be surrounded by non- residential uses, physical barriers or impediments that obstruct access, public services, or utility services. The lnfill Community Overlay District is established to ensure that the residential development proposed on these infill sites are compatible with existing surrounding land uses, have sufficient access to public streets, infrastructure, and services, and that the residential development has taken into account of all environmental, physical, and all site constraints. 9449.2: Applicability: A. lnfill sites must meet the following conditions in order to be rezoned with the lnfill Community Overlay District designation: 1. Property must be within the R-2 or R-3 zoning districts; ORDINANCE 14-981 Zoning Code Amendment to create lnfill Community Overlay District Page 3 2. The property must not be a part of an existing established neighborhood; 3. Project site shall have no less than 5 acres of contiguous developable area. 4. Project site shall have physical or environmental constraints such as shape, topography, site access, noise, etc. which prevent the property from meeting the normal requirements of the R-2 or R-3 zoning districts. 9449.3: Reclassification Procedure and Development Review: A. Reclassification of the lnfill Community Overlay District shall require the application of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. B. All development within the lnfill Community Overlay District shall be subject to site plan review and applicable discretionary permits, application submittal requirements, and approval procedures through the Community Development Department, Planning Commission and/or City Council. 9449.4: Standards of Development: Multi-family residential development shall comply with the density and provisions of the underlying zoning district except as follows: A. Minimum Lot Size: 1 ,400 square feet B. Attached Units: No more than thirty-three percent (33%) of the total units shall be comprised of attached units. C. Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coverage is seventy percent (70%) of the individual lot area. D. Floor Area Ratio shall be calculated on the net developable lot area: 1. R-2 Zone: 0.60 2. R-3 Zone: 0.70 E. Second Story Floor Area: The second story floor area of any detached dwelling unit shall not exceed ninety-five percent (95%) of the first story floor area, including attached garages. The second story ratio for the attached units (zero lot line), shall be calculated using the living area and attached garage for all attached units. ORDINANCE 14-981 Zoning Code Amendment to create lnfill Community Overlay District Page 4 F. Required Setbacks: 1. A minimum 3-foot setback is required for all habitable space on the 1st and 2nd floor inclusive of architectural elements, such as bay windows, fireplaces, planter boxes or similar items; cornices, eaves, and elements that do not restrict emergency service access may encroach up to eighteen (18) inches. 2. 2nd floor projections over the first floor are permitted in all yards and shall comply with the 3-foot setback requirement; 2nd floor projections on the access driveway side may have zero setback but in no case shall the 2nd floor projection extend over the property line. 3. Decorative architectural features not used for living purposes may encroach up to eighteen (18) inches into the 3-foot setback provided a minimum three (3) foot access is provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. 4. Zero Lot Line: Residential units may also be attached to other units, therefore forming a zero lot line. G. Required Parking: 1. 2 private garage spaces shall be provided for each unit. 2. 3/4 guest parking spaces shall provided for each unit. The surface of guest parking spaces may include impervious materials. H. Development within the lnfill Community Overlay District shall comply with the architectural design guidelines and articulation requirements in the underlying zone to the intent of achieving a high quality project and shall be subject to the approval of the appropriate approval body. I. A minimum of one (1) recreational area or common open space shall be provided for every twenty-five (25) units. The minimum size of each recreational area shall be 5,000 square feet and have a minimum width of forty (40) feet. J. Developments may be gated, provided any operable gate(s) and stacking area meet the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department and City Engineer to ensure emergency access and prevent impacts to adjacent public streets, and subject to approval of applicable approval body. K. Walls or hedges may exceed 6 feet in height, provided the higher wall or hedge is required mitigation as part of an approved Mitigated Negative ORDINANCE 14-981 Zoning Code Amendment to create lnfill Community Overlay District Page 5 Declaration or Environmental Impact Report, and subject to approval of applicable approval body. L. All permanent mechanical equipment located on the ground shall be screened from common areas and shall not restrict emergency access. M. Private and secure storage shall not be required. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and to its approval by the Mayor and shall cause the same to be published according to law. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21sr DAY OF JANUARY 2014. Mayor ATTEST: CITY CLERK I, City Clerk of the City of Temple City, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 14-981 was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temple City held on the 7th day of January, 2014 and was duly passed, approved and adopted by said Council, approved and signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at the regular meeting held on the 21st day of January, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Councilmember- Councilmember- Councilmember - ATTACHMENT D ORDINANCE NO. 14-988 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY AMENDING THE TEMPLE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONING AT 9250 LOWER AZUSA ROAD (APN 8592-005-003, 8592-005-004) FROM THE HEAVY MANUFACTURING (M-2) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT AND THE INFILL COMMUNITY (IC) OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has considered all of the evidence submitted into the administrative record which includes but is not limited to: 1. Reports and presentations of project related data and analysis prepared by the Community Development Department; and 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and all other supporting environmental documentation and technical studies; and 3. The Temple City Municipal Code, General Plan, and all other applicable regulations and codes; and 4. Public comments, both written and oral, received or submitted prior to the public hearing, supporting or opposing the applicant's request; and 5. Testimony and comments submitted by the applicant and representatives in both written and oral form at or prior to the public hearing; and 6. All other related documents received or submitted prior to the public hearing. SECTION 2. This resolution is made with reference to the following prefacing facts as more fully set forth in the administrative record: 1. On July 1, 2013, the applicant submitted the application. 2. On September 6, 2013, the tentative maps prepared for the project were distributed to City Land Development/Engineering Division and other relevant public and private agencies for review and comments. 3. On November 15, 2013, the application was deemed complete. 4. On November 18, 2013, the Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the local newspaper and on November 19, 2013, the notice was posted at the Los Angeles County Clerk Office. ORDINANCE 14-988 Zone Change at 9250 Lower Azusa Road Page 2 5. On November 20, 2013, the public review period for the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration began. 6. On November 26, 2013, notice of the December 10, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing was provided to property owners within 300 feet of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. Due to an error in the notice, a revised notice was also mailed on December 3, 2013. 7. On November 28, 2013, the notice of the public hearing on December 10, 2013 was published in the Temple City Tribune. Due to an error on the notice, a revised notice was also published on December 5, 2013. 8. On December 10, 2013 the public review period for the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ended. 9. On December 19, 2013, the notice of the City Council public hearing on January 7, 2014 was published on the local newspaper. 10. On December 20, 2013, the notice of the City Council public hearing on January 7, 2014 was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. 11. Notice of the public hearing satisfied the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091. 12.The project is located at 9250 Lower Azusa Road and 4303 Temple City Boulevard. SECTION 3. On January 7, 2014 the City Council approved Resolution No. 14- 4961, approving a General Plan Amendment changing the Land Use Designation on the subject property from Industrial to Medium Density Residential SECTION 4. Based on all the facts and evidence stated in Sections 1 through 3 of this Ordinance, the City Council of the City of Temple City does hereby approve changing the zoning designation of the property located at 9250 Lower Azusa Road (APN 8592-005-003, 8592-005-004) from the Heavy Manufacturing (M-2) Zoning District to the R-2 Zoning District and lnfill Community (I C) Overlay Zoning District. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and to its approval by the Mayor and shall cause the same to be published according to law. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF JANUARY 2014. ORDINANCE 14-988 Zone Change at 9250 Lower Azusa Road Page 3 Mayor ATTEST: CITY CLERK I, City Clerk of the City of Temple City, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 14-988 was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temple City held on the 7th day of January, 2014 and was duly passed, approved and adopted by said Council, approved and signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at the regular meeting held on the 21st day of January, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Councilmember- Councilmember - Councilmember- Councilmember- ATTACHMENT E CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 14-4962 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 74-UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 9250 LOWER AZUSA ROAD (FILE NO. 130000091). SECTION 1. The City Council has considered all of the evidence submitted into the administrative record which includes but is not limited to: 1. Reports and presentations of project related data and analysis prepared by the Community Development Department; and 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and all other supporting environmental documentation and technical studies. 3. The Temple City Municipal Code, General Plan, and all other applicable regulations and codes; and 4. Public comments, both written and oral, received or submitted prior to the public hearing, supporting or opposing the applicant's request; and 5. Testimony and comments submitted by the applicant and representatives in both written and oral form at or prior to the public hearing; and 6. All other related documents received or submitted prior to the public hearing. SECTION 2. This resolution is made with reference to the following prefacing facts as more fully set forth in the administrative record: 1. On July 1, 2013, the applicant submitted the application. 2. On September 6, 2013, the tentative maps prepared for the project were distributed to City Land Development/Engineering Division and other relevant public and private agencies for review and comments. 3. On November 15, 2013, the application was deemed complete. 4. On November 18, 2013, the Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the local newspaper and on November 19, 2013, the notice was posted at the Los Angeles County Clerk Office. 5. On November 20, 2013, the public review period for the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration began. 6. On November 26, 2013, notice of the December 10, 2013 Planning Commission City Council of the City of Temple City Resolution 14-4962 January 7, 2014 Page 2 of 17 public hearing was provided to property owners within 300 feet of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roiL Due to an error in the notice, a revised notice was also mailed on December 3, 2013. 7. On November 28, 2013, the notice of the Planning Commission public hearing on December 10, 2013 was published in the Temple City Tribune. Due to an error on the notice, a revised notice was also published on December 5, 2013. 8. On December 10, 2013 the public review period for the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ended. The Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing to review the project. The Planning Commission voted in favor of the project and made the recommendation to the City Council to approve File No. 130000091 and Ordinance No. 14-981. 9. On December 19, 2013, the notice of the City Council public hearing on January 7, 2014 was published in the Temple City Tribune. 10. On December 20, 2013, the notice of the City Council public hearing on January 7, 2014 was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roiL 11. Notice of the public hearing satisfied the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091. 12. Notice of the public hearing satisfied the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091. 13.The project is located at 9250 Lower Azusa Road and 4303 Temple City Boulevard. 14. The project site is zoned M-2, Heavy Manufacturing; and designated Industrial by the General Plan. 15. The project site has a total size of 10.8 acres. However, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District has a recorded easement on the property of 4.63 acres, which is known as the Eaton Wash. Therefore, the net developable area unencumbered by the easement, is 6.22 acres. 16. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the lot at R-2 density into 74 lots for single-family use. The project requires a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, and a Site Plan Review. The project also proposes a Development Agreement and creating a new lnfill Community (!C) Overlay Zoning District (Ordinance No. 14-981). City Council of the City ofTemple City Resolution 14-4962 January 7, 2014 Page3of17 SECTION 3. The City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and in view of all of the evidence concludes that based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that with the proposed mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the findings as follows: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the City Council; and further, this City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP with regard to the application. 2. Based upon the design of proposed project and the mitigation measures incorporated, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. 3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the City Council finds that in considering the record as a whole, including the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and MMRP for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Furthermore, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, MMRP, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council during the public hearing, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) ofTitle 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 4. Based on the public hearing for the requested Conditional Use Permit, the City Council finds: 1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size, shape, topography and circumstances to sustain the proposed use; The project has a net developable area of 6.22 acres, which may be developed into 75 units at R-2 density. The project proposes 74 units meeting the density of the R-2 zoning district and the lnfill Community (IC) Overlay Zoning District In addition, the project meets the development standards of the R-2 zoning district and the IC overlay zoning district Therefore the project meets this finding. City Council of the City of Temple City Resolution 14-4962 January 7, 2014 Page 4 of 17 2. That the site does have sufficient access to streets and highways, adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of traffic generated by the proposed use; A Traffic Impact Study was prepared for the Initial Study, analyzing the projected traffic impact of the project and found there to be "less than significant" traffic impacts with mitigation measures implemented. The mitigation measures include street widening and public improvements on Lower Azusa Road. Therefore the project meets this finding. 3. That the proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon the use, enjoyment or valuation of adjacent property or upon the public welfare. The proposed project would create 74 Single-Family Residences. The project is located between the Union Pacific Railroad and the Eaton Wash. The project was designed to allow for continued access to Eaton Wash and restrict access from the railroad and wash to the site. The design will ensure that the project does not have an adverse effect on the use and access of the Eaton Wash or Union Pacific Railroad. The location of the project also limits potential impacts to the Manufacturing uses to the north or the residential uses located in the City of Rosemead at the south of property, as the railroad and wash provide a buffer between the proposed project and the surrounding uses. Therefore the project meets this finding. SECTION 5. Based on the public hearing for the requested Tentative Tract Map, the City Council must deny the project if it can find any of the following: 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451; and The Tentative Tract Map to create 74 small single-family lots is consistent with the purpose and maximum density requirements of the proposed Medium Residential General Plan designation that is part of this project. Therefore the project does not meet this finding. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans; and As discussed above The Tentative Tract Map to create 74 small single-family lots is consistent with the purpose and maximum density requirements of the proposed Medium Residential General Plan designation that is part of this project. The proposed project will also meet all the zoning requirements and development standards. Therefore the project does not meet this finding. City Council of the City of Temple City Resolution 14-4962 January 7, 2014 Page 5 of 17 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development; and The site is physically suitable for the creation of 74 small single-family lots and meets all the zoning requirements and development standards. Therefore the project does not meet this finding. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development; and The project has a net developable area of 6.22 acres, which may be developed into 75 units at R-2 density. The project proposes 74 units which is below the maximum density allowed in the R-2 zoning district while meeting all the development standards of the R-2 zoning district and the IC overlay zoning district. Therefore, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development and does not meet this finding. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; and The design of the Tentative Tract Map does not cause environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project which determined that the project has "less than significant" environmental impacts with mitigating measures implemented. Therefore the project does not meet this finding. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems; and The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration determined that the project is not likely to cause serious health problems with proposed mitigating measures implemented. Therefore the project does not meet this finding. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has City Council of the City ofTemple City Resolution 14-4962 January 7, 2014 Page 6 of 17 acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The project site has two recorded easements. There is a Los Angeles County Flood Control easement of 4.63 acres at the north of the project site, and a 15- foot wide Southern California Edison easement which runs through the width of the project site through the middle. The design of the Tentative Tract Map does not conflict with the two easements in that no structures are to be built in the easement areas and all existing access to the easements are to remain. Therefore the project does not meet this finding. SECTION 6. Accordingly, the City Council approves File No. 130000091 subject to the following conditions: PLANNING 1. The Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review are contingent upon the approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and are not effective until the Zone Change becomes effective. 2. The development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plans dated December 20, 2013 by the City of Temple City Community Development Department, except as modified herein after. 3. Planted trees shall be no less than twenty-four inch (24") box-size and shrubs shall be at least 5 gallon. 4. Any landscaped areas along the private street shall be planted and maintained until the dwellings are individually sold and common areas shall be continuously maintained thereafter by the Homeowner's Association. 5. A chain link security fencing five (5') feet in height shall be maintained or installed as required around the site prior to the demolition of existing structures. 6. All block walls shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the approved plan and maintained clean and free of graffiti on both sides. All graffiti shall be removed within 48-hours of being found. 7. The applicant/property owner shall maintain the subject property after this date and until start of construction and until the project is completed to be free of weeds, debris, trash or any other offensive, unhealthful and dangerous material. If after fifteen days notice by certified mail, the developer does not comply with the before- mentioned criterion, the City may enter the subject property to correct all subject violations, bill the applicant, and/or put a lien on the subject property. City Council of the City ofTemple City Resolution 14-4962 January 7, 2014 Page 7 of 17 8. Noise shall not exceed the limits of the City's noise ordinance. During any demolition and/or construction, noise will be controlled by limiting work on the site to 7:00 am through 6:00 pm, Monday through Saturday and by requiring all trucks and motorized equipment to have properly operating mufflers. No construction work shall occur on Sunday or holidays. 9. As provided for in Government Code Section 66020, applicant has ninety days from the date this project is approved to protest the imposition of any fees, dedications, reservations, or exactions imposed on the project for the purposes of defraying the costs of public improvements, services or amenities. This condition shall serve as the notice the City is required to provide applicant under GC Section 66020(d)(1). 10. That a method for continual maintenance of the private street and common area shall be provided in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) and that this document shall incorporate maintenance provisions for parkways, drainage devices in the private street or common area, and all yard areas determined by the City to be common yard areas. The City of Temple City, L.A. County Sheriff's Department and L.A. County Fire Department shall have the authorization to fully enforce the "No Parking" prohibition in the designated fire lane(s), including issuing citations and towing of vehicles parked in said fire lane(s). The CC&R's shall not be changed or modified without the written consent of the City of Temple City. The CC&R's and provisions contained therein shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney prior to approval of the Final Map. 11. New addresses and names of private streets shall be approved by the City Planning Division. 12. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study. ENGINEERING 13. Prior to approval of the Final Map or the issuance of grading permits and building permits, grading plans must be approved to: a. Eliminate sheet overflow and pending. b. Provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties. c. Provide for the proper distribution of drainage. d. Provide encroachment permit from the County of Los Angles Flood Control District allowing for the project's storm drain connection and acceptance of storm water flows into the Eaton Wash. City Council of the City ofTemple City Resolution 14-4962 January 7, 2014 Page 8 of 17 14. If applicable, show and call out all existing on-site public and private easements with names of the holders, document numbers and recorded dates. Label all easements as "to remain", "to be relocated" or "to be abandoned". If an easement is to be abandoned, indicate the proposed timing of the abandonment. If there are no existing on-site public and private easements, add the annotation "No existing on- site public and private easements" on the tentative map. 15. A grading plan and detailed soils engineering report must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the final map to assure that all geologic factors have been properly evaluated and the grading plans have been reviewed by the soils engineer and are in conformance with the recommendations contained in the soils engineering report. The report submitted is a due diligence report and does not include information such as but not limited to: a. Soil, structural, seismic, foundation, retaining wall, etc. design parameters b. Grading specification/recommendations c. Corrective grading measures d. Construction limitations e. Preliminary structural sections f. Soil permeability (infiltration is proposed for BMPs) 16. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) related to pollutants, runoff or non-stormwater discharges (TCMC 8100-8405). Project applicant is required to obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit and establish compliance with its requirements prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number shall be indicated on the grading plans and a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to the City. 17. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall submit for approval a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). 18. Comply with the requirements of the approved drainage concept/hydrology study/SUSMP to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 19.A grading and drainage plan must be submitted for review and approval to the City Engineer prior to installation or posting of a bond for the perimeter block wall and sound wall and prior to recordation of the final map. The drainage plan must demonstrate that the site will be free of flood hazard and provide for contributory drainage from adjacent properties. (The drainage plan and the grading plan may be submitted in combination.) 20. The applicant shall install and dedicate a main line sewer and serve each building with a separate house lateral or have approved and bonded sewer plans on file with the City of Temple City. Dedicate on the final map a 10-foot-wide easement along the on-site sewer main if public (no easement required if private). Grant an City Council of the City of Temple City Resolution 14-4962 January 7, 2014 Page 9 of 17 easement and/or provide a license agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad Company for the extension of the sewer line from the project site to Temple City Boulevard within the railroad right-of-way for the installation, operation and maintenance of the sewer line by the Homeowner's Association. The easement or license agreement documents shall be submitted to the City Engineer, City Attorney and County of Los County Sanitation District for approval. 21. The discharge of sewage from this land division into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code. 22. Obtain "will serve letter" from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District for the discharge of sewer into the sewer trunk line. 23. Provide a "will serve letter" from the water purveyor indicating that the water system will be operated by the purveyor and that under proposed conditions, the system will meet the requirements for the land division, and that the water service will be provided to each building. 24. Prior to the final map approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City-franchised cable TV operator to permit the installation of cable in a common utility trench. 25. Construct or bond for a water system with appurtenant facilities to serve all buildings in the land division prior to recordation of the final map. The system shall include fire hydrants of the type and location as determined by the LACoFD. The water mains shall be sized to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows. 26. A deposit is required to review documents and plans for final map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010 of the Subdivision Ordinance. 27. Prior to approval of the Final Map, submit a notarized affidavit to the Community Development Department, signed by all owners of record at the time of filing of the map with the County Recorder, stating that the building has not been occupied and that said building will not be occupied until after the filing of the map with the County Recorder. 28. A Final Map prepared by, or under the direction of, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor must be processed through the City Land Development/Engineering Division prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 29. Relocate or quitclaim any easements interfering with building locations to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. City Council of the City ofTemple City Resolution 14-4962 January 7, 2014 Page 10 of 17 30. Private easements shall not be granted or recorded within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication to the City until after the final map is filed with the County Recorder unless such easements are subordinate to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative map approval, a subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the final map. 31. If signatures of record title interests appear on the final map, submit a preliminary title guarantee. A final guarantee will be required at the time of filing of the final map with the County Recorder. If said signatures do not appear on the final map, a preliminary title reporUguarantee is needed that covers the area showing all fee owners and interest owners. The account for this preliminary title reporUguarantee should remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder. 32. Prior to submitting the Final Map to the City Council for Approval pursuant to Section 66442 of the Government Code, obtain clearances from all affected Departments and Divisions including a clearance from the City Land Development/Engineering Division for the following mapping items: mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, and correctness or certificates, signatures, etc. 33.At the time of issuance of a building permit, the subdivider agrees to develop the property in conformance with the submitted plans, the City code and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Ordinance, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Water Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code. 34. Submit landscape and irrigation plans for the entire development, in accordance with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 35. Any special entrance treatment and the turnaround shall be entirely outside of the public right of way. FIRE PROTECTION 36. Provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department (LACoFD) for all land shown on the map to be recorded. 37. Provide Fire Department and City approved building address numbers prior to occupancy. 38. Fire Department access shall extend to within 150 feet distance of any portion of structures to be built unless waived by the LACoFD. City Council of the City of Temple City Resolution 14-4962 January 7, 2014 Page 11 of 17 39. Provide a private driveway-fire lane per the approved plans by the LACoFD. Said driveway shall be noted on the final map; posted "NO PARKING--FIRE LANE" specifications and shall be maintained in accordance with requirements and standards of the LACoFD. The Fire Lane shall be conspicuously posted with signage or red curb that meets the specifications of the LACoFD and Sheriff's Departments and shall indicate that violators will be towed at owner's expense per the California Vehicle Code and the Temple City Municipal Code. Additionally, the CC&R's shall specifically grant a waiver, which allows the City of Temple City, the L.A. County Sheriff's Department or the LACoFD to enter upon the private property to enforce the "No Parking" prohibition in the designated fire lane. 40. A water system maintained by the water purveyor (or Homeowner Association if a private system), with appurtenant facilities to serve all buildings in the land division, must be provided. The system shall include fire hydrants of the type and location (both on-site and off-site) as determined by the LACoFD. The water mains shall be sized to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows. 41. Fire hydrant requirements are as follows: Provide fire hydrants along the private drive access at the spacing approved by LACoFD. Fire flow test results shall be submitted to the LACoFD for approval. 42. Provide a water system analysis demonstrating minimum fire flow requirements and pressures are maintained at the furthermost fire hydrant from the point of connection. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 1 ,250 gallons per minute @ 20 psi for duration of 2 hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand unless as otherwise approved by the LACoFD. 43. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted or bonded for prior to recordation of the final map. 44. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. (Unless a phasing plan has been submitted and approved by the City Engineer and the LACoFD.) 45.AII hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal unless otherwise approved by LACoFD. 46. Access shall comply with Chapter 14 of the California Fire Code, which requires all weather access. All weather access requires paving. PUBLIC WORKS 47. This development shall be responsible to construct off-site improvements listed City Council of the City of Temple City Resolution 14-4962 January 7, 2014 below: Page 12 of 17 • Widen the south side of Lower Azusa Road to 32' centerline to curb width and construct curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements along the project frontage and extending northerly to the existing improvements at Eaton Wash, and southerly to the Union Pacific Railroad to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • Grind and overlay 2 inches asphalt concrete full street width from the existing concrete at Eaton Wash to the Railroad Crossing. • Reinstall thermo-plastic extrusion stripping and reinstall street markings/delineation as directed by the Public Works Inspector. • Install stop signs at the project entry. • Establish and maintain a limited use area to provide a clear line of sight at the project access intersection. • The above improvements shall be constructed and accepted by the City prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit. 48. Dedications: a. Dedicate a ten (10) foot wide easement for the on-site sewer main (if onsite system is public). b. Dedicate additional easement for street and highway purposes along Lower Azusa Road as necessary for a 40-foot half street width right of way. 49. Streets, alleys, and driveways: All on-site driveways/private streets shall be constructed a minimum of 3" asphalt concrete over 6" of base on the main spine street, and 6" Portland cement concrete over native on north-south alleyways unless a similar standard is approved by the City Engineer and subject to final soils report recommendations. 50. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks: Construct driveways to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines and to the satisfaction of the City of Temple City. Driveways to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter and sidewalk. Repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk pavement within or abutting the subdivision. 51. Street Lights: Install one (1) LED street light (flat glass) on a 30' marbelite pole with underground service. Streetlight to be installed at the westerly side of the project entrance. Provide street light plan for the review and approval of the Community Development Department. 52. Street Trees: Install 36-inch box street trees at 40 foot intervals along Lower Azusa Road from Eaton Wash to the project entrance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Community Development Director. City Council of the City ofTemple City Resolution 14-4962 January 7, 2014 Page 13 of 17 53. 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 public sidewalk. All drainage into the Eaton Wash is subject to Los Angeles County Department of Public Works approval and permits and additional approvals where required by Army Corps of Engineers. 54. Sewers: Provide an on-site sewer main for the project and laterals. A sewer area study for the proposed subdivision was reviewed and approved. No additional mitigation measures are required. The sewer area study shall be invalidated should the total number of dwelling unit increase, the density increase, dwelling units occur on previously identified building restricted lots, change in the proposed sewer alignment, increase in tributary sewershed, change of the sewer collection points, or the adoption of a land use plan or a revision to the current plan. A revision to the approved sewer area study shall remain valid for two years after initial approval of the tentative map. After this period of time, an update of the area study shall be submitted by the applicant if determined to be warranted by the City Engineer. A sewer easement shall be required per Condition 19 unless on-site sewer is privately maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 55. 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, except for the existing SCE distribution crossing located adjacent to Lots 36 and 37. Prior to issuance of building permits, provide to the City's Community Development Department a detailed utility plan for review and approval showing all utility pipes, wires and conduits and their respective points of connection. Water meters shall be located outside of the sidewalk. 56. Permits: Show on plot plan all right-of-way improvements from centerline of street to property line. Permits shall be obtained from the City Land Development/Engineering Division prior to commencement of any work in the public right-of-way. All work in the public right-of-way shall meet City Land Development/Engineering standards and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Community Department Director or his designee. 57. 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. Failure to comply with this condition will result in charges being filed with the District Attorney. (TCMC 3400-3411) All debris shall be removed daily and dust control measures shall be implemented. City Council of the City of Temple City Resolution 14-4962 January 7, 2014 Page 14 of 17 58. Solid Waste Management: Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, provide a written report to the City's Community Development Department 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. TRACT MAP REQUIREMENTS 59. A final tract map prepared by or under the direction of a registered civil engineer licensed before January 1, 1982 or by a licensed land surveyor shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 60. Preparation of the final tract map(s) shall conform to the applicable portions of Sections 66434-66443, and Sections 66456-66462.5 of the State Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and local ordinances. 61.A preliminary soils report is required (SMA 66490) unless specifically waived by the City Engineer. 62.A preliminary title report (dated within 6 months) shall be provided which indicates all trust deeds (to include the name of the trustee), all easement holders, all fee interest holders, and all interest holders whose interest could result in a fee. The account for this title report shall remain open until the final tract map is filed with the County Recorder. 63. Easements shall not be granted or recorded within any area proposed to be dedicated, offered for dedication, or granted for use as a public street, alley, highway, right of access, building restriction, or other easements until after the final tract map is approved by the City and filed with the County Recorder; unless such easement is subordinated to the proposed dedication or grant. If easements are granted after the date of tentative approval, a subordination shall be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the final tract map. 64.AII public easements or easements of utility companies governed by the California Public Utilities Commission that are noted on the final map or parcel map shall require submittal of a utility letter (SMA 66436). 65. Monumentation of tract map boundaries, street centerlines, and lot boundaries is required if the map is based on a field survey in accordance with SMA 66495 and 66496. City Council of the City of Temple City Resolution 14-4962 January 7, 2014 Page 15 of 17 66.AII conditions from City Departments and Divisions shall be incorporated into the tract map prior to submitting the tract map for review. 67.1n accordance with California Government Code Sections 66442 and/or 66450, documentation shall be provided indicating the mathematical accuracy and survey analysis of the tract map and the correctness of all certificates. Proof of ownership and proof of original signatures shall also be provided. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 68. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City Engineer and the LACoFD Site Mitigation Unit (SMU), a remedial excavation and disposal work plan. The plan shall address the areas of contamination identified in the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments and the Site Characterization Assessment Report. 69. The remedial excavation and disposal work plan or SWPPP shall include a description and implementation of storm water BMP's necessary to prevent contaminated storm water runoff or unauthorized non-storm water discharges from leaving the project site. 70. Prior to start of any construction or grading the applicant shall submit to the City a final remedial excavation and disposal report indicating that all recommended mitigation and remedial work has been completed on the site. Applicant may undertake environmental soil removal as directed under the demolition plan and approved remedial action plan prior to grading permit. This report shall be approved by the LACoFD Site Mitigation Unit and any other agency identified as having jurisdiction over contaminated soil mitigation. 71. The building construction plans shall include each page of this resolution, including all conditions of approval contained herein. 72. All existing structures on the subject site shall be removed prior to recordation of the final map .. 73. No building permits shall be issued until the final map has been recorded (except for Model Homes). Demolition permits for site clearance and grading permits may be issued at any time. 74. There shall be installed a separate water meter for each dwelling unit, as well as a separate meter for common irrigation, if applicable. If water purveyor requires the on-site water system to be private, a master meter at the project entrance may be used. City Council of the City of Temple City Resolution 14-4962 January 7, 2014 Page16of17 75. This Resolution shall not become valid until all responsible parties have signed and agreed to the aforementioned condition of this Resolution. 76. Permittee/contractor Prior to issuance of a demolition and/or grading permit, the permittee/contractor shall contact the California Integrated Waste Management Board (recycling hotline 800-553-2962) to obtain an approved recycler (processor and/or receiver) for demolition and construction waste. 77. At the minimum, the permittee/contractor shall recycle each of the following demolition and construction waste materials: o Asphalt paving: 75% o Concrete and concrete masonry units: 75% o Non-lead based painted wood wastes (dimensional lumber and broken crates and pallets): 50% o Metals: 60% o Copper cable/wire: 50% o Transformers and ballast's: 100% o Fluorescent larnps: 1 00% o Glass: 50% o Unpainted gypsum board: 50% A minimum of 50% of the total weight of the waste (demolition and construction wastes) shall be diverted from landfill. 78. The applicant and all subsequent sellers shall disclose the proximity of the railroad and the flood control channel to all future buyers/residents of the project. 79. Upon recordation of the Final Map, applicant and the engineer shall submit five (5) bond copies of the recorded map to the City Land Development/Engineering Division 80. That this Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Map shall expire 24 months from the date of approval. If the final map is not to be recorded prior to the expiration date, the subdivider may apply in writing to the Community Development Director at least forty (40) days before the expiration date for an extension of time on the approval of the map. The Map may be extended for up to five (5) years from the date of approval, at the discretion of the granting body. SECTION 8. The City Council of the City of Temple City does hereby approve a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review to construct a 74-unit single- family residential project at 9250 Lower Azusa Road (File No. 130000091). City Council of the City ofTemple City Resolution 14-4962 January 7, 2014 Page 17 of 17 MAYOR I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, Resolution 14-4962 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 7th of January, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers- Councilmembers - Councilmembers - Councilmembers - City Clerk ATTACHMENT F ORDINANCE NO. 14-989 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY AND OLSON URBAN HOUSING, LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSING PROJECT ON LOWER AZUSA ROAD BETWEEN THE EATON WASH AND THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY (APN 8592-005-003 and 8592-005-004) WHEREAS, California Government Code Title 7, Chapter 4, Article 2.5 authorizes the City of Temple City to enter into development agreements which will provide certainty, definition and commitment to developers as well as to necessary public improvements required by development; and, WHEREAS, Olson Urban Housing, LLC, and its related entity Olson Land Opportunities, LLC (collectively "Developer") have proposed a 74-unit single family attached and detached residential project, tentatively named "Azusa Walk," on a 10.8 acre site zoned M-2 and located in a mixed manufacturing and single-family residential area ("Project"), and the Developer has submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change, a Tentative Tract Map, a Conditional Use Permit, and a Site Plan Review as required by the Temple City Municipal Code to implement the Project; and, WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map would allow development of the Project, which includes the demolition and clearing of a former lumber yard and the construction of the 74 residential units, recreational amenities, and common areas, as well as retention of 4.63 acres of easement currently dedicated to the Eaton Wash; and, WHEREAS, in connection with the General Plan and Zoning Map amendments and other approvals, the Developer and City staff have negotiated a proposed Development Agreement in accordance with the requirements of California Government Code, Title 7, and Chapter 4, Article 2.5 and Resolution No. 1986-77, which, among other things, sets forth the effective date and term of the agreement; permitted uses of the property; densities of uses; applicable fees; applicable rules, regulations and policies; required infrastructure improvements; provisions on amendments, annual review and default; and other miscellaneous provisions, to allow for development of the Project; and, WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 13-2392PC, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Development Agreement and other approvals necessary to implement the Project, and, WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 14-4959, the City Council approved a Mitigated LA #4829-3693-4167 vl Section 7. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its final passage. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted or published pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 36933. Section 8. Within ten (10) days after the date upon which the City Manager executes the Development Agreement on behalf of the City, the City Clerk shall record the Development Agreement and this Ordinance with the Recorder/County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles. Section 9. If any part of this Ordinance, or the Development Agreement which it approves, is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or of the Agreement, and this City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of the Ordinance, or approved the remainder of the Agreement, if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. INTRODUCED this 7th day of January 2014. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of January 2014. Cynthia Sternquist, MAYOR ATIEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peggy Kuo, City Clerk Eric S. Vail, City Attorney LA#4829-3693-4167 vl I, Peggy Kuo, City Clerk of the City of Temple City, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 14-989 was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temple City held on the 7th day of January, 2014, and was duly passed, approved and adopted by said Council at the regular meeting held on , 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Peggy Kuo, City Clerk LA#4829-3693-4167 v1 ATTACHMENT G Recorded At The Request EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES UNDER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 27383 And When Recorded Return To: PeggyKuo City Clerk City of Temple City 9701 Las Tunas Drive Temple City, CA 91780 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2014-01 BY AND BETWEEN OLSON URBAN HOUSING LLC AND CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (" Agreement") is made and entered into as of the "Effective Date" set forth herein by and between OLSON URBAN HOUSING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (" Developer") and the CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, a Charter City organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ("City") (individually a "Party" and collectively the "Parties" sometimes herein) as provided herein: RECITALS A. Article 2.5 of Chapter 4 of Division I, Title 7 of the California Government Code, commencing at § 65864, et seq., authorizes cities to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property. B. Developer has the contractual right to acquire all interest in and to that real property located entirely within City, consisting of approximately 10.86 acres, the common and legal description of which is set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (" Propertv"). Developer's right to acquire the Property is set forth in that certain Sale Agreement and Escrow Instructions, by and between the Developer and Ramshorn Corporation, a California corporation, dated March 19, 2012, as amended (" Purchase Agreement"). C. Developer has received the following land use approvals from the City for the development of the Project on the Property: (i) Project No. 1300091 & 1300092 including a General Plan amendment, a Zone Change, a Zoning Text Amendment, a Conditional Use Permit, a Tentative Tract Map No. 72407, a Development Agreement and a Mitigated Negative Declaration with related Mitigation Monitoring Program. Page 2 D. On the 7th day of January 2014, City adopted its Ordinance No. 14-xxxx approving this Development Agreement with Developer and said Ordinance became effective on _____ , 2014. OPERATIVE PROVISIONS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above Recitals and of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1.0 Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires, the following te1ms shall have the following meaning: 1.1 "City" is the City of Temple City, a charter city and municipal corporation formed and existing under the laws of the State of California and any successor-in-interest to the rights, obligations, and powers of the City. 1.2 "Default" shall mean the failure of a party to perform any material action or covenant required by and within the time periods provided following notice and expiration of the opportunity to cure without such cure being completed, as set forth in Section 20 of this Agreement. 1.3 "Developer" is OLSON URBAN HOUSING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. 1.4 "Development Impact Fees" shall mean those development impact fees imposed and levied by the City to recover the cost of planned public facilities and to mitigate impacts of projects on the City. "Development Impact Fees" do not include fees imposed by govemmental entities other than the City (even if the City collects such fees on behalf of the other governmental entity), general and special taxes, application fees and processing fees. 1.5 "Development Regulations" means the ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, and official policies of the City governing the development and use of land, including, but not limited to, the permitted use of land; the density or intensity of use; subdivision requirements; the maximum height and size of proposed buildings; the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes; and the design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property. Development Regulations do not include any County or City ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation, or official policy, governing: 1.5.1 The licensing or regulation of businesses, professions, and occupations; 1.5.2 Sales taxes, ad valorem property taxes, or voter approved general or special taxes and assessments; 1.5.3 Health & Safety Regulations as defined in Section 11.3; 1.5.4 The granting of encroachment pe1mits and the conveyance of rights and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public prope1ty; and/or 84600.003-1086358v0.1 Page 3 1.5.5 The exercise of the power of eminent domain. 1.6 "Effective Date" shall mean the 31st calendar day following adoption of the ordinance approving this Agreement by City's City Council. 1.7 "Existing Development Approvals" shall mean those certain land use development permits and approvals issued, approved, and/or certified by the City listed in Recital C, and also including any land use or building permit or approval issued, approved, and/or certified with respect to the Property as of the Effective Date of this Agreement by the City. 1.8 "Existing Development Regulations" shall mean those Development Regulations in effect as of the Effective Date. 1.9 "Ministerial Implementing Approvals" shall mean those procedures, reviews, pe1mits and approvals that are ministerial (except as provided herein) in nature and necessary to implement the Existing Development Approvals, this Agreement, and the Project, including, but not limited to final map approval, grading plan check, grading permits, building plan check, building permits, encroachment permits, sign review, sign permits, landscape plan rev1ew, engineering plan check, and encroachment permits. 1.10 "Project" is that development approved for the Property as provided in this Development Agreement comprised of 74 residential condominium units, three pocket parks and 70 guest spaces (Exhibit "E-Project Map") all as reflected in the Existing Development Approvals. 1.11 "Property" shall mean that real property consisting of approximately 10.86 acres, the common and legal description of which is set forth in Exhibit "A. 1.12 "Public Improvements" shall mean those public improvements, including but not limited to streets, street lights, traffic signals, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, parkway landscaping, irrigation systems, storm drains, sewers, and other public facilities related to the Project and required to be constructed and installed in the existing public rights-of-way and/or on areas of the Property to be dedicated to the City by the Developer as part of the development of the Project. The Public Improvements are more fully listed and described in Exhibit "B," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 1.13 "Subsequent Development Regulations" shall mean those Development Regulations that go into effect after the Effective Date. 1.14 "Subsequent Project Approvals" shall mean those Ministerial Implementing Approvals, and such amendments or modifications to the Existing Development Approvals as Developer applies for and are granted by CITY after the Effective Date. 2.0 Recitals. The recitals are part of the agreement between the parties and shall be enforced and enforceable as any other provision of this Agreement. 3.0 Interest of Property Owne1·. Developer wanants and represents that it has right to acquire the Property, pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, that it has full legal right to enter into this Agreement and that the persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer have been duly authorized to do so. 84600.003-1086358v0.1 Page 4 4.0 Binding Effect of Agreement. 4.1 Subject to Developer's acquisition oflegal title to the Property, Developer hereby subjects the Project and the Property to the covenants, reservations and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement. The City and the Developer hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon Developer's successors and assigns in title or interest to the Project. 4.2 Following Developer's acquisition of the Property, each and every contract, deed or other instrument thereafter executed, covering or conveying the Project or any portion thereof shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations and restrictions expressed in this Agreement, regardless of whether such covenants, reservations and restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed or other instrument. 4.3 City and Developer hereby declare their understanding and intent that the burden of the covenants, reservations and restrictions set forth herein touch and concem the land in that the Developer's legal interest in the Property is rendered less valuable thereby. The City and Developer hereby further declare their understanding and intent that the benefit such covenants touch and concern the land by enhancing and increasing the enjoyment and use of the Property by Developer and the future occupants of the Property, the intended beneficiaries of such covenants, reservations and restrictions, and by furthering the public purposes for which this Agreement is adopted. Further, the parties hereto agree that such covenants, reservations and restrictions benefit all other real property located in the City of Temple City. 5.0 Relationship of Parties. It is understood that the contractual relationship between City and Developer is such that Developer is an independent party and is not the agent of City for any purpose whatsoever and shall not be considered to be the agent of City for any purpose whatsoever. 6.0 Term of Agreement. The term of the Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire thirty (30) months thereafter ("Initial Term"). provided that the Initial Term shall be extended by the period of any Force Majeure Event (as described in Section 30 below) occurring during the Initial Tenn. If prior to the expiration of the Initial Term certain Project Milestones are met as outlined in Exhibit "F", the term shall automatically extend for an additional thirty (30) months from the date the Initial Tetm expired ("Extension Term"). The Extension Term shall be extended by the period of any Force Majeure Event (as described in Section 30 below) occurring during the Extension Term. The Initial Term and the Extension Term are collectively referred to herein as the "Term". 7.0 Construction. Developer shall use commercially reasonable efforts, in accordance with its own business judgment talcing into account market conditions and economic considerations, to complete construction of the Project on the Property, and all phases thereof, including, but not limited to, landscaping, within the Initial Term and any Extension Term of this Agreement. 8.0 Public Improvements. The following provisions shall apply with regard to any Public Improvements required for the Project: 8.1 Construction of Improvements. Developer hereby agrees to, at its sole cost and expense, design, construct, and install, in accordance with the requirements of the City, the Public Improvements (as set forth in Exhibit "B"). 84600.003-1086358v0.1 Page 5 8.2 Improvement Security. Developer shall provide to the City, by no later than the issuance of specific permits for the construction of the Public Improvements, an instrument or instruments securing the commencement, completion, and worlananship of the Public Improvements and securing the payment of laborers and materialmen perfonning or to perform work on the Public Improvements (collectively "Imorovement Security'} The Improvement Security shall be one or more of the securities listed under California Government Code § 66499, as is designated by the City. The principal amount of any Improvement Security shall be detennined by the City in application of California Government Code § § 66499.3 and 66499.4. All such Improvement Security provided to the City shall be released in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code § 66499.7. 8.3 Dedication of Rights-of-Way for Public Improvements. Developer shall dedicate such rights-of-way, easements, agreements, licenses, and other grants of rights over the Property ("Dedications") to the City as are reasonably required to accomplish the survey, design, construction, inspection, testing, operation, maintenance, and repair of the Public Improvements and as the City is authorized to require under the Existing Development Regulations. The Dedications, if any, to be required by the City for the Project is specified in Exhibit "C" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Developer agrees that the making of such Declications are part of the consideration provided by Developer for this Agreement, that Developer shall not seek, nor have a right to, any compensation from the City for such Dedications, and that Developer shall not pursue any legal action for compensation, including inverse condemnation or eminent domain, with regard to such Dedications. 8.3 Dedication of Rights-of-Way for Public Improvements. Developer shall dedicate such rights-of-way, easements, agreements, licenses, and other grants of rights over the Property ("Dedications") to the City as are reasonably required to accomplish the survey, design, construction, inspection, testing, operation, maintenance, and repair of the Public Improvements and as the City is authorized to require under the Existing Development Regulations. The Dedications, if any, to be required by the City for the Project is specified in Exhibit "C" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Developer agrees that the making of such Dedications are part of the consideration provided by Developer for this Agreement, that Developer shall not seek, nor have a right to, any compensation fi-om the City for such Dedications, and that Developer shall not pursue any legal action for compensation, including inverse condemnation or eminent domain, with regard to such Dedications. 8.4 Public Art. Developer shall install public art, including but not limited to sculptures, along the southwestern border of the Property. The public art installed by the Developer shall be approved by the City and have a maximum cost to Developer of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) . Developer agrees to work with the City's Public Arts Commission to select the artwork that will be installed and the locations of the installations. The artwork and locations selected by the Public Arts Commission will be submitted to the City Council for final approval, consistent with Temple City Municipal Code Section 2632. The calculation of the total cost of the public art piece shall include all costs of design, approval, acquisition and installation of the public art piece, including, without limitation, all artist and consultant fees necessary to approve the art, the lighting and mounting of the art on site, and the fabrication/installation of the art piece itself. 9.0 Assignment. 9.1 Developer shall have the right to sell, mortgage, hypothecate, assign or transfer (collectively, "Transfer") all or any portion of the Property (as the same may be 84600.003-1086358v0.1 Page 6 subsequently subdivided), subject to the express written permission of the City during the term of this Development Agreement, which permission shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed .. Except as provided in Section 9.2.2 below, any such transfer shall be deemed to include an assigrnnent and assumption of all rights, duties and obligations created by this Development Agreement with respect to the pmiion of the Property which is the subject of that Transfer. No sale, transfer, or assigmnent by Developer shall violate the Subdivision Map Act, Govemment Code Section 66410, et seq .. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no City approval or permission shall be required in connection with a (i) an encumbrance of the Property pursuant to Section 22 below, (ii) a sale to a publicly traded homebuilder, or one of the 25 largest private homebuilders operating in the State of California, (iii) a Transfer to the end user of the residential unit pursuant to a final subdivision public issued with respect to the Property, or any homeowner or property owner's association in which such home buyers are members, (or) a Transfer of completed model units in connection with the marketing or financing of the project. In any event, all further restrictions upon Transfer shall terminate upon the earlier of the termination of this Agreement or the completion of construction of all plarmed improvements upon the Property. 9.2 Any assignment made under this section shall be made in compliance with the following provisions: 9.2.1 No sale, transfer, or assignment of any right or interest under this Agreement shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer, or assigmnent of all or a part of the Property. Developer agrees to provide specific notice of this Agreement, including the record or document number, where a true and conect copy of this Agreement may be obtained from the County Clerk/County Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, to the transferee. 9.2.2 No fewer than fifteen (15) business days prior to such sale, transfer, or assigmnent, Developer shall notify City, in writing, of such sale, transfer, or assigrnnent. Following any sale, transfer, or assigrnnent of a fee interest in the Property, Developer shall provide City with an executed agreement, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney, by the Developer, transferee, or assignee and providing therein that the transferee, or assignee is aware of the terms of this Agreement and expressly and unconditionally assumes all the duties and obligations of the Developer under this Agreement as it relates to the property being acquired; provided that no such agreement shall be required in connection with and no rights or obligations hereunder shall transfer to the end user of the Property acquiring it for occupancy as a primary or secondary residential use, including any purchaser pursuant to a final subdivision public report issued with respect to the Propetiy. 9.2.3 Any sale, transfer, or assignment not made in strict compliance with this Section 9 shall constitute default by the Developer under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the failure of the Developer, buyer, transferee, or assignee to execute the agreement required by this section, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon the buyer, transferee, or assignee, but the benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to the buyer, transferee, or assignee until and unless such agreement is executed. 9.3 Release of Developer. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer, or assignment, Developer shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement as it relates to the Property, or portion thereof, transfened tmless Developer is given a release in writing by City, which release shall be provided by City upon the full satisfaction by Developer of ALL of the following conditions: 84600.003-1086358v0.1 Page 7 9.3.1 The Developer no longer has a legal interest in all or any part of the Property sold, transferred or assigned except as a beneficiary under a deed of trust. 9.3 .2 The Developer is not then in material default under this Agreement. 9.3.3 The Developer or the buyer, transferee, or assignee has provided City with the executed agreement required under section 9.2.2 above. 9.3.4 The buyer, transferee or assignee provides City with security reasonably equivalent to the security, if any, previously provided by Developer to secure performance of its obligations hereunder. 9.3.5 The Developer has paid all fees, if any, that are then due and owing by the Developer to the City through the date of the proposed transfer. 9.4 Subsequent Assignment. Any subsequent sale, transfer, or assignment after an initial sale, transfer, or assignment by Developer shall be made only in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of this Section 9. 10.0 General Standards and Restrictions Pertaining to Development of the Property. The following specific restrictions shall apply to the use of the Property pursuant to this Development Agreement: 10.1 Developer shall have the right to develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and City shall have the right to control development of the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. City agrees to timely consider and expeditiously act upon any matter which is reasonably required, necessary or desirable to accomplish the intent, purpose and understanding of the parties in entering into this Agreement, including, without limitation, processing of any Subsequent Project Approval, as provided for in Section 15. 10.2 Subject to Developer's installation of infrastructure in accordance with the requirements of the Existing Development Approvals, City hereby acknowledges that it will have sutlicient capacity in its infrastructure and services to accommodate the Project. City hereby agrees that it will provide all applicable City controlled services to the Project and that there shall be no restriction by City on hookups or service for the Project with respect to said items. l 0.3 The density and intensity of use, the uses allowed, the size of proposed buildings, provisions for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the maximum height of proposed buildings and location of public improvements, together with other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property, shall be as set forth in this Development Agreement and the Existing Development Approvals. l 0.4 City agrees to cooperate with Developer in the issuance of permits on an expedited basis and at the earliest feasible date, including, separate and sequential issuance of demolition, grading and building permits and, if applicable, issuance of permits prior to recordation of tract maps for the Project; provided Developer's applications for such permits comply with all applicable Existing Development Regulations. 84600.003-1086358v0.1 Page 8 11.0 Effect of Existing Development Regulations on Development of Project. Except as expressly provided in this Development Agreement, the Existing Development Regulations shall apply to the construction and development of the Project on the Property and, subject only to the terms of this Development Agreement, Developer shall have a currently effective vested right to develop the Property in accordance with the Existing Development Regulations. The parties acknowledge and agree that the City is restricted in its authority to limit the exercise of its policy power by contract. As such, the parties agree that this Section adequately reserves to the City all of its respective police power while providing the Developer, to the fullest extent allowed under Article 2.5 of Chapter 4 of Division 1, Title 7 of the California Government Code, commencing at § 65864, et seq., and interpreting decisions of comis of competent jurisdiction, vested rights to develop the Project. Subject to the foregoing, and to the maximmu extent permitted under the law, this Agreement is intended to, and shall, bind future City Councils to its terms. 11.1 The provisions of this Section 11 shall not preclude the application to the development of the Property of Subsequent Development Regulations which are specifically mandated and required to apply to the Project by changes in state or federal laws or regulations as provided in California Government Code§ 65869.5 or any successor provision or provisions. 11.2 As provided in California Government Code § 65866, in subsequent actions applicable to the Property, City may apply new rules, regulations, and policies to the Property adopted after the Effective Date provided such new rules, regulations and policies do not conflict in any way with the terms of this Development Agreement or the rights granted herein or further condition or restrict the development of the Project as provided for herein. 11.3 Nothing herein shall prevent the City from applying to the development of the Project on the Property, or the subsequent use of the Property, any ordinances, rules, regulations, policies, or procedures ("Laws"), the primary purpose of which is to protect health, safety, and welfare, or the primary purpose of which is the general regulation of business activity within the City. These matters may include, but are not limited to: (i) Laws regarding the abatement of public nuisances; (ii) Laws regulating hazardous materials, trash and related rubbish and solid waste, weeds, dust, graffiti, and inoperative vehicles; (iii) Laws regarding emergency situations including fires, floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters; (iv) Laws prohibiting criminal acts; (v) Laws regulating the keeping and use of animals; (vi) Laws regulating prurient interests including the regulations of adult businesses and activities, smoking, and the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages; (vii) Laws regulating the conduct of business within the City including the requirement to obtain a business license; (viii) Laws regulating the use and placement of signs within the City; and (ix) building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, fire, dangerous buildings, and similar uniform codes adopted by the City (collectively, the " Health & Safety Regulations") . 1n the event Developer contests that application of such Health & Safety Regulations to development of the Project on the Property as being in conflict with any of the Existing Development Approvals, or as impairing or prohibiting Developer's ability to develop the Project as contemplated in this Agreement, then Developer shall so notify the City in writing, in which event City shall not impose such regulation on the Property and until the City adopts a finding that imposition of the regulation is being applied to the Property in the same marroer as it is being generally applied throughout the City and is reasonably necessary to correct or avoid a condition generally injurious or detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. These findings shall be based upon substantial evidence in the record from a hearing conducted by the City Council. 84600.003-1086358v0.1 Page 9 12.0 Development Impact Fees. The Development Impact Fees applicable to the Project during the Term of this Agreement shall be limited to those Development Impact Fees and the amount thereof shown on Exhibit "D" attached hereto. The applicable portion of each of the Development Impact Fees shown on Exhibit "D" shall be paid at the time a building permit is issued for each residence within the Project during the Term. 13.0 Maintenance of the Property. The Developer shall, during its ownership of the Property and at its sole cost and expense: (i) maintain the appearance and safety of the Property (including all improvements, fixtures, and landscaping) in good order, condition, and repair, and free from the accumulation of trash, waste materials, and other debris; (ii) remove all graffiti placed upon the Property (including all improvements, fixtures, and landscaping) within seventy-two (72) hours of its appearance; (iii) maintain in good order, condition and repair, properly functioning landscape inigation systems on the Property; and (iv) remove and promptly replace all dead or diseased landscaping material on the Property. In the event of a default of this Section 13 and of a failure to commence to cure such default within fifteen (15) days after service of a written notice by the City, or to thereafter diligently pursue such cure to completion, then the City or its agents, employees and contractors shall have the right to enter upon the Property without further notice and to take such actions as are necessary to cure the default. Developer shall reimburse the City for all reasonable costs associated with cure of the default, within fifteen (15) days after delivery of a written notice by the City to the Developer of those costs. Following assignment of the control of the common area of the Property to a homeowners association, the obligations described above shall be performed by that association and Developer shall have no frniher responsibility therefor. 14.0 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Property sha.ll be those specified in the Existing Development Approvals and the Ministerial Implementing Approvals, all as they may be amended from time to time at the request of the Developer and with the approval of the City. 15.0 Public Benefit. The parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement confers private benefits on the Developer which should be balanced by commensurate public benefits. Accordingly, the parties intend to provide consideration to the public to balance the private benefits confetred on the Developer by providing more fully for the satisfaction of the public needs resulting from development of the Project. The public benefits of the Project include provision of park, open space, and affordable housing funding above and beyond that cunently required under the Existing Development Regulations and Development Fees and the provision of such additional park space in the Project will assist City in meeting its need for additional parks, open space, and affordable housing units. 16.0 Subsequent Project Approvals. The parties contemplate that development of the Project will require Developer to obtain certain Ministerial Implementing Approvals from the City for the Project. Such Subsequent Project Approvals shall be governed by the following: 16.1 Ministerial Implementing Approvals. The pmiies acknowledge and agree that Developer shall need certain Ministerial Implementing Approvals (such as grading and building permits) to undertalce and complete the Project as contemplated under the Existing Development Regulations, Existing Development Approvals and this Agreement. These Ministerial Implementing Approvals are anticipated to be of a ministerial or only 84600.003-1086358v0.1 Page 10 limited discretionary nature and shall not cause a substantial or significant change in the Project or in any Existing Development Approval. No Subsequent Development Regulation or Development Impact Fee shall be imposed as a condition of approval on a Ministerial Implementing Approval. City shall accept for processing, review, and action all applications for Ministetial Implementing Approvals and such applications shall be processed in the normal manner for processing such matters unless Developer requests expediting of the Ministerial Implementing Approvals. At the Developer's request, City will contract for planning and engineering consultant services to expedite the review and processing of Ministerial Implementing Approvals, and, in that event, the cost plus a 15% administrative fee shall be borne by Developer. 16.1.1 Subdivision Map. The Parties contemplate that Developer will process a Tentative Tract Map as one of the Existing Development Approvals. However if the Developer does not process or obtain approvals of a Tentative Tract Map before the effective date of this Agreement, then Developer shall process a subdivision map through City's subdivision map approval process, comprising all of the property identified in Exhibit "A," and cause the final map to be recorded in the form prescribed by law. Developer may, at Developer's sole risk and expense, and after executing and recording a subdivision improvement agreement approved and executed by the City, apply for building and grading permits pursuant to City's codes and ordinances, prior to the recordation of said map; provided, however, that no certificate of occupancy or other entitlement of a similar nature may be granted or obtained prior to recordation thereof No conditions of approval shall be imposed in connection with processing or approval of such subdivision map beyond those contained in the Existing Development Approvals and Existing Development Regulations, and those required by mitigation measures approved as part of any subsequent CEQA review and approval, if any, required for the Map. As provided in California Government Code §§ 66452.6 and 65863.9, the term of any tentative, vesting tentative or parcel map hereafter approved with respect to the Project and the term of each of the Project Approvals shall remain in effect and be valid through the scheduled termination date of this Agreement or the date such approval would otherwise be in effect under applicable law, whichever is later. 16.2 Amendments to Existing Development Approvals. Upon the written application of Developer, modifications and changes to the Existing Development Approvals may be approved pursuant to the terms of City's Zoning Ordinance. 17.0 Periodic Review Procedure 17.1 Timing. Pursuant to Government Code § 65865.1, City shall review the Developer's compliance with the terms, conditions, and covenants of this Agreement. Such review shall be undertaken at least once during every twelve (12) month period from the Effective Date of this Agreement. The Developer or successor shall reimburse City for the reasonable and necessary costs of this review, not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) annually, excluding cost incurred under Section 20 [Default & Enforcement], within thirty (30) days of written demand from City. City's failure to conduct any such annual review shall not affect the validity or continuing effectiveness of this Agreement. 84600.003-1086358v0.1 Page 11 17.2 Evidence for Annual Review. Developer shall deliver to City within thirty (30) days of the date of receipt of a written request fi·om City, evidence to demonstrate the Developer's good faith compliance with the terms ofthis Agreement. The City shall bear no responsibility or obligation to research, investigate, or otherwise obtain evidence of Developer's good faith compliance with this Agreement. It shall be Developer's sole responsibility and obligation to provide evidence of its good faith compliance with this Agreement. Prior to malcing a determination, the City shall malce available to the Developer any public staff reports and docwnents to be used or relied upon by City to detemline Developer's good faith compliance with this Agreement. The Developer shall be pennitted an opportunity to respond to the City's evaluation of its performance, either orally or at a public hearing or in a Wlitten statement. Such response shall be made to the City Manager or its designee for purposes of review of compliance with this Agreement. 17.3 Certificate of Compliance. With respect to each year for which an annual review of compliance with this Agreement is conducted, and for which the City has determined that Developer is in good faith compliance with this Agreement, the City, upon written request of the Developer, shall provide Developer with a written certificate of good- faith compliance, duly executed and acknowledged by the City. The Developer shall have the right, in the Developer's sole discretion, to record this certificate of compliance. 18.0 Indemnification. Developer agrees to, and shall, hold City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees free and harmless from all liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise from the negligent or wrongful actions of Developer relating to the construction of the Project. This hold harmless provision applies regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied or approved the plans, specifications or other docwnents for the Project, but shall not apply to any claim arising from the negligence or intentional misconduct of the City or any agent or representative acting on the City's behalf. 19.0 Amendments. This Agreement may be amended or modified, in whole or in part, only by mutual written consent of the parties and then in the manner provided for in California Goverwnent Code §§ 65868, et seq., or their successor provisions. 20.0 Default & Enforcement. 20.1 Default. Either party's failure or llilfeasonable delay in performing any term, provision or covenant of this Agreement constitutes a breach of this Agreement. In the event of a breach, the injured party may give written notice of breach to the defaulting party, specifying the breach. Delay in giving or failure to give such notice shall not constitute a waiver of the breach. If the breaching party fails to cure the breach within the Cure Period (as defined below), then the party shall be in Default and liable to the injured pmiy for any and all damages caused by such Default, unless otherwise provided for by this Agreement. The "Cure Period" shall be (i) forty-five ( 45) business days after receipt of a written notice of breach, or, (ii) if the breach is of a nature that cannot reasonably be cured within such forty-five ( 45) business days, a reasonable period, provided the breaching party commences to cure the breach within said forty-five (45) business days and thereafter diligently prosecutes such cure to completion. 84600.003-1086358v0.1 Page 12 20.2 Breach by Developer. Developer is in breach under this Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions: 20.2.1 If a material warranty, representation or statement is made or furnished by Developer to City with respect to this Agreement and is false or proved to have been false in any material respect when it was made; 20.2.2 If a finding and determination is made by City following an mmual review pursuant to Section 17 above, upon the basis of substantial evidence, that Developer has not complied in good faith with any material terms and conditions of this Agreement, after notice and opportunity to cure as described in hereinabove; or 20.2.3 A breach by Developer of any of the provisions or terms of this Agreement, after notice and opportunity to cure as provided in hereinabove. 20.2.4 More than forty-five ( 45) days have passed since City's making of a written request to Developer for payment or reimbursement for a fee or service authorized or agreed to pursuant to this Agreement and which Developer was obligated to pay or reimburse, and Developer has failed to provide such payment or reimbursement. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect existing entitlements or permits issued prior to such termination, although all such permits shall be and remain subject to any terms and conditions of approval contained therein or imposed in connection therewith. 20.3 Breach by City. If City has failed to cure its breach during the Cure Period as provided in Section 20.1 Developer may pursue any legal or equitable remedy available to it under this Agreement without further notice to City, except as may be required under the law for service of summons and other legal papers. It is acknowledged by the parties that City would not have entered into this Agreement if City was to be subject to or liable for dlli11ages --including monetary d=ages --under or with respect to this Agreement or the application thereof Developer, for himself or any successor thereto, expressly waives the right to seek dlli11ages --including monetary d=ages --against the City or any officer, employee, or agent thereof, for any breach or Default of this Agreement. Owner covenants and agrees not to sue for or claim any d=ages --including monetary dmnages --for any purported breach or Default of this Agreement by City. Dming the time when Owner alleges the existence of a City Default and without limiting any of its other available remedies, Owner shall not be obligated to proceed with or complete the Project or any phase of the Project, nor to reserve or dedicate any property pursuant to the Development Plan or this Agreement. Upon a City Default, any resulting delays in Developer's performance shall neither be a Developer Default nor constitute grounds for termination or cancellation of this Agreement by the City. 21.0 No Waiver of Remedies. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement are available to the parties to pursue in the event that there is a breach of this Development Agreement. No waiver of any breach or default under this Development Agreement by a 84600.003·1086358v0.1 Page 13 party hereto shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default hereunder. 22.0 Rights of Lenders Under Agreement. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer, acting in good faith, in any manner, at its sole discretion, from encumbe1ing the portion of the Property owned by it, or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon, by any mortgage, deed of trust, or other security device securing financing with respect to such portion of the Property without further authorization from or consent or approval of the City. The City acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and/or modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with the Developer and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. City agrees that it will not urrreasonably withhold consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall require City to agree to subordinate this Agreement to any security interest. Neither the entering into of this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust on the Property, or any portion thereof, made in good faith and for value. Should Developer place or cause to be placed any encumbrance or lien on the Project, or any part thereof, the beneficiary ("Lender") of said encumbrance or lien shall have the right at any time during the term of this Agreement and the existence of said encumbrance or lien to: 22.1 Do any act or thing required of Developer under this Agreement, and any such act or thing done or performed by Lender shall be as effective as if done by Developer; 22.2 Realize on the security afforded by the encumbrance or lien by exercising foreclosure proceedings or power of sale or other remedy afforded in law or in equity or by the security document evidencing the encumbrance or lien (hereinafter refeiTed to as "a trust deed"); 22.3 Transfer, convey or assign the title of Developer to the Project to any purchaser at any foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale be conducted pursuant to court order or pi.rrsuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed; and 22.4 Acquire and succeed to the interest of Developer by virtue of any foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale is conducted pursuant to a court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed, and thereafter freely transfer or dispose of such interest to a third pmiy without complying with any of the requirements of this Agreement applicable to a transfer, and, upon such transfer, Lender shall be automatically released from any ftuiher liability hereunder. This Agreement will remain valid and binding on the transferee. No Lender shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform Developer's obligations, or to guarantee such performance prior to any foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure, but upon acquiring fee title to the Property or any portion thereof, the Lender shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. However, any person who acquires title to the Property thereafter shall also be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 84600.003-1086358v0.1 Page 14 23.0 Notice to Lender. City shall give written notice of any Default or breach under this Agreement by Developer to Lender (if !mown by City) and afford Lender the opportunity after service of the notice to: 23.1 Cure the breach or Default within forty five (45) business days after service of said notice, where the Default can be cured by the payment of money; 23.2 Cure the breach or Default within forty five ( 45) business days after service of said notice where the breach or Default can be cured by something other than the payment of money and can be cured within that time; or 23.3 Cure the breach or Default in such reasonable time as may be required where something other than payment of money is required to cure the breach or default and such cure cannot reasonably be performed within forty five ( 45) business days after said notice, provided that acts to cure the breach or default are commenced within a forty five ( 45) business day period after service of said notice of default on Lender by City and are thereafter diligently continued by Lender. 24.0 Action by Lender. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, a Lender may forestall any action by City for a breach or Default tmder the terms of this Agreement by Developer by commencing proceedings to foreclose its encumbrance or lien on the Project. The proceedings so commenced may be for foreclosure of the encumbrance by order of court or for foreclosure of the encumbrance under a power of sale contained in the instrument creating the encumbrance or lien. The proceedings shall not, however, forestall any such action by the City for the Default or breach by Developer unless: 24.1 They are commenced within ninety (90) days after service on Developer and Lender of the notice of breach described hereinabove; 24.2 They are, after having been commenced, diligently pursued in the manner required by law to completion; and 24.3 Lender keeps and performs all of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement requiring the payment or expenditure of money by Developer until the foreclosure proceedings are complete or are discharged by redemption, satisfaction or payment. 25.0 Notice. Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be provided by certified mail, return receipt requested, at the address of the respective parties as specified below or at any other such address as may be later specified by the parties hereto. To Developer: 84600.003-1086358v0.1 OLSON URBAN HOUSING, LLC 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100 Seal Beach, California 907 40 Attention: Todd Olson and John Reekstin Business No.: (562) 596-4770 Facsimile No.: (562) 596-4703 With a copy to: 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100 Seal Beach, California 90740 Attention: Katherine M. Chandler, Esq. Business No.: (562) 370-2217 Facsimile No.: With a copy to: Email: tolson@theolsonco.com OLSON URBAN HOUSING, LLC (562) 598- 9535kchandler@theolsonco.com City of Temple City 9701 Las Tunas Drive Temple City, CA 91780 Attention: City Manager Business No.: (626) 285-2171 Facsimile No.: (626) 285-8192 Email: jpulido@templecity.us Eric S. Vail Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 2280 Market St., Suite 300 Riverside, CA 92592 Business No.: (951) 788-0100 Facsimile No.: (951) 788-5785 Email: evail@bwslaw.com Page 15 26.0 Attorneys' Fees. In any proceedings arising from the enforcement of this Development Agreement or because of an alleged breach or Default hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred during the proceeding or upon any appeal therefrom as may be fixed within the discretion of the court. 27.0 Binding Effect. This Agreement shall bind, and the benefits and burdens hereof shall inure to, the respective parties hereto and their legal representatives, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, wherever the context requires or admits. 28.0 Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. 29.0 Partial Invalidity. If any provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality or enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 30.0 Force Majeure. In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, whenever a period of time is designated within which any party hereto is required to do or complete m1y act, matter or thing, the time for the doing or completion thereof shall be extended by a period of time equal to the number of days during which such party is prevented from the doing or completion of such act, 84600.003-1086358v0.1 Page 16 matter or thing because of causes beyond the reasonable control of the party to be excused, including, without limitation, war; acts of terrorism; insurrection; riots; t1oods; earthquakes; fires; casualties; acts of God; strikes; litigation and administrative proceedings involving the Project; restrictions imposed or mandated by other governmental entities; enactment of cont1icting state or federal laws or regulations; judicial decisions; moratoria or governmental restriction; extraordinary disruptions in capital markets; the exercise of City's reserved powers; or similar bases for excused performance which are not within the reasonable control of the party to be excused (collectively, "Force Majeure Event") 31.0 Estoppel Certificate. At any time during the te1m of this Agreement, any lender or third party may request any party to tllis Agreement to confirm that (i) this Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect (or if there have been modifications hereto, that tl1is Agreement is in full force and effect as modified and stating the date and nature of such modifications) and tl1at (ii) to the best of such party's knowledge, no Defaults exist under this Agreement or if Defaults do exist, to describe the nature of such Defaults and (iii) any other information reasonably requested. 32.0 Timing of Development. The parties acknowledge that Developer cannot at tills tin1e predict when or the rate at which the Project would be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not all witllln the control of Developer. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 465, that the failure of the parties therein to provide for tl1e timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties' agreement, it is the intent of Developer and City to hereby cure that defect by acknowledging and providing that Developer shall have the right to develop the Property consistent with the Existing Development Approvals in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate. No City-imposed moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, tin1ing or sequencing of the development or construction of all or any pmi of the Property, whetl1er in1posed by ordinance, initiative, resolution, policy, order or otherwise, and whether enacted by the City Council, a board, agency, comnlission or department of City, the electorate, or otherwise) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting tentative or final), building pemlits, occupancy certificates or other entitlements to use or service (including, without linlltation, water a11d sewer) approved, issued or granted within City, or portions of City, shall apply to the Property to the extent such moratorium or other limitation is in cont1ict with this Agreement. 33.0 Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of the County Recorder of the County of Los Angeles within ten (10) business days following Developer's acquisition of title to the Property, or the execution and delivery of this Agreement, whichever occurs last. Developer shall bem· the cost of recordation hereof, if any. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties and shall be effective on the Effective Date set forth hereinabove. [signatures on following page] 84600.003-1086358v0.1 CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, a Charter City and municipal corporation Dated: By Cynthia Sternquist, Mayor ATTEST: Peggy Kuo, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Eric S. Vail, City Attorney 84600.003·1086358v0.1 Page 17 OLSON URBAN HOUSING, LLC a Delaware limited liability company By: In Town Living, Inc. a Delaware corporation Its Managing Member By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: Page 18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) On personally appeared, before me, , a notary public, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public 84600.003-1086358v0.1 84600.003-1086358v0.1 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Exhibit "A"-1 Page 19 84600.003-1 086358v0 .1 EXHIBIT "B" PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Page 20 Page 21 Exhibit "B"-1 84600.003-1086358v0.1 846DD.DD3-1086358v0.1 EXHIBIT "C" DEDICATIONS Exhibit "C" - 1 Page 22 Affordable Housing Fee Park Fee Sewer Reconstruction Fee Public Art Fee 84600.003-1 086358v0 .1 Page 23 EXHIBIT "D" DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES $157,000 ($2121.62 per unit payable on a unit by unit basis upon issuance of a building permit for the applicable unit) $168,000 ($2270.27 per unit payable on a unit by unit basis upon issuance of a building permit for the applicable unit) $74,000 ($1,000 per unit payable on a unit by unit basis upon issuance of building permit for the applicable unit) $150,000 ($2027 .02 per unit payable on a unit by unit basis upon issuance of building permit for the applicable unit) 84600.003-1086358v0.1 EXHIBIT "E" PROJECT MAP Exhibit "E"-1 Page 24 18 Months 30 Months 84600.003-1086358v0.1 EXHIBIT "F" PROJECT MILESTONES Site demolition and remedial grading complete Recording of Final Tract Map Exhibit "F"-1 Page 25 INTIAL STUDY FOR THE PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 72407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Prepared for: City of Temple City 9701 Las Tunas Drive Temple City, California 91780 (626) 285-2171 Prepared by: Tom Dodson & Associates 2150 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, California 92405 (909) 882-3612 December 2013 Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....................................................................... 7 Determination ............................................................................................................... 8 Environmental Checklist Form I. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................... 9 II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources ................................................................... 11 III. Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 13 IV. Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 30 V. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 33 VI. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................. 36 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 39 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................... 43 IXI. Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................. 52 X. Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................... 56 XI. Mineral Resources .............................................................................................. 58 XII. Noise .................................................................................................................. 59 XIII. Population and Housing ...................................................................................... 74 XIV. Public Services ................................................................................................... 76 XV. Recreation .......................................................................................................... 78 XVI. Transportation / Traffic ........................................................................................ 79 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................. 84 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................... 87 Summary of Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 89 References ....................................................................................................................... 93 TABLES Table III-1 California Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................... 15 Table III-2 Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants .................................................. 18 Table III-3 Air Quality Monitoring Summary 2008-2012 ............................................... 20 Table III-4 Construction Activity Equipment Fleet ........................................................ 24 Table III-5 Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions ....................... 24 Table III-6 LSDT and Project Emissions ..................................................................... 25 Table III-7 Daily Operational Impacts .......................................................................... 26 Table VII-1 Construction Emissions.............................................................................. 41 Table VII-2 Operational Emissions ............................................................................... 42 Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) TABLES Table XII-1 California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Temple City General Plan Noise Element ................................................................ 60 Table XII-2 Noise Standards ........................................................................................ 61 Table XII-3 Noise Measurements Existing Hourly Leq’s and Resultant 24-Hour CNEL ..................................................................................... 62 Table XII-4 Interior Vibration Levels ............................................................................. 67 Table XII-5 Prototype 30 dB Structural Noise Attenuation Package ............................. 69 FIGURES (at end of document) Figure 1 Regional Location Figure 2 Site Location Figure 3 Aerial Photo Figure 4 Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations Figure 5 Existing and Current Zoning Designations Figure 6 Tentative Tract Map No. 72407 Figure 7 Site Plan Review – Landscape Plan Figure 8 Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan Figure 9a-I Site Plan Review – Elevations Figure 10 Utility Plan Figure XII-1 Generalized Ground Survey Vibration Curves ............................................ 66 Figure XII-2 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels ......................... 72 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Photo Simulations Appendix 2 Air Quality and GHG Analysis Appendix 3 Cultural Resources Appendix 4 Noise Appendix 5 Traffic Impact Study Appendix 6 Responses to Public Comments Appendix 7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INTRODUCTION 1. Project Title: Project File No. 130000091: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map No. 72407, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review and a Development Agreement 2. Lead Agency Name: City of Temple City Address: 9701 Las Tunas Drive, Temple City, CA 91780 3. Contact Person: Adam Gulick, Associate Planner Peter Sun, Management Analyst Phone Number: (626) 285-2171 4. Project Location: 9250 Lower Azusa Road, Temple City, California 5. Project Sponsor’s Olson Land Opportunities, LLC Name and Address: 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100 Seal Beach, CA 90740-2751 6. General Plan Designation: Industrial 7. Zoning: M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing) 8. Project Description: Introduction Olson Land Opportunities, LLC (Project proponent) is proposing to implement a 74 unit single- family attached and detached residential project with associated on-site recreational amenities (three pocket parks) on two parcels totaling approximately 10.8 acres (Project) located at 9250 Lower Azusa Road, in the City of Temple City, County of Los Angeles, California. A Flood Control easement, for the Eaton Wash, is located on the northeasterly portion of the Project site and is approximately 4.63 acres. After netting out this easement, the remaining developable area is approximately 6.22 acres. An existing Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way (ROW), with a single line, is located adjacent to the southeasterly property line. The Project site is a long and narrow site, the width being approximately 130 feet distance between the railroad right of way and the Eaton Wash and the length being an average of 2,570 feet. There is one access point to Lower Azusa Road. A single, 24-foot-wide drive lane, which leads to fourteen 24-wide drive lanes (average depth 90 feet) is along the southerly portion of the Project. As presently proposed, the Project proponent has prepared six applications as part of Project File No. 130000091 to allow development of the proposed Project site: • General Plan Amendment; • Zone Change; • Tentative Tract Map No. 72407; • Conditional Use Permit; • Site Plan Review; and • Development Agreement Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 2 The General Plan Amendment would change the current General Plan designation of Industrial to Medium Density Residential. The Zone Change would change the current Zoning designa- tion from M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing) to R-2 (Single/Multiple Family, Duplexes - up to 12 DU/acre). Tentative Tract Map No. 72407 is a subdivision map for single-family residential development and common ownership of the streets and recreational areas. Site Plan Review is submitted for the new single-family residential development. A more detailed Project description is provided in the following text. Project Location and Setting The proposed Project is located within the City of Temple City, which is located in southeastern Los Angeles County. The Project site is generally located southeasterly of Lower Azusa Road, northeasterly of the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, and southwesterly of the Eaton Wash, approximately 400 feet east of the intersection of Lower Azusa Road and Encinita Avenue. Refer to Figure 1, Regional Location and Figure 2, Site Location Map. The site is contained within an unsectioned area of Township 1 South and Range 11 West of the USGS Topographic Map, 7.5 Minute Series, El Monte Quadrangle and known as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 8592- 005-003 and 8592-005-004. The Project site is bounded by the following uses: North: Lower Azusa Road, Eaton Wash, industrial and residential South: Railroad lines/ROW, single-family, vacant East: Storage lot, industrial West: Industrial, Railroad lines/right-of-way, residential, Encinita Elementary School, Rosemead High School, Rosemead Park Reference Figure 3, Aerial Photo. According to the Site Characterization Assessment, 9250 Lower Azusa Road and 4303 Temple City Boulevard, Temple City, California 91780, SMU #12-892 /RO0001515, prepared by Stantec, dated July 8, 2013, the Project site historically developed as a lumber yard and associated lumber business by the late 1960s. The Project site was separated into two businesses which carried separate business addresses (referenced above). According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 9250 Lower Azusa Road, Temple City, California 91780, prepared by Stantec dated May 22, 2012, most of the site is currently paved, with a small section, along the concrete-lined channel, being covered with gravel. There are five structures on-site: two small, wood-framed buildings which are used for storage, two large metal-framed structures where milling activities were performed, and a house-like structure that appears to have been used as office and retail space. The entire Project site is surrounded by chain link fencing. Railroad tracks are located on-site, connecting the two large metal-framed structures and the joining the adjacent railway to the southwest of the Project site. General Plan Amendment The existing General Plan land use designation for the Project site is Industrial. The proposed General Plan land use designation for the Project site is Medium Density Residential. Please reference Figure 4, Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 3 Zone Change The existing Zoning designation for the Project site is M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing). The proposed Zoning designation for the Project site is Infill Community (IC) Overlay Zoning District. Please reference Figure 5, Existing and Current Zoning Designations. Tentative Tract Map No. 72407 Tentative Tract Map No. 72407 (TTM 72407) proposes a subdivision of the Project site into 74 residential lots with common ownership of the streets and recreational areas that encompasses approximately 6.22 acres. Refer to Figure 6, Tentative Tract Map No. 72407. The overall Project density is 11.9 DU/acre, net. Conditional Use Permit At the time of submittal of the application, the City’s Municipal Code required that any multi- family residential development with more than 3 units requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Site Plan Review Overall Description A total of 74 units are proposed within 62 individual buildings, with 50 of the single-family units being detached and 12 being attached. One access point is proposed to the Project site at Lower Azusa Road. A drive lane is proposed on the southerly property boundary. Buildings are proposed to cover approximately 1.95 acres, or 31.35% of the Project site. Hard- scape/pavement/parking will cover approximately 2.43 acres or 39.07% of the Project site. Land- scaping/open space will cover the remaining 1.84 acres of the site, or approximately 29.58% of the Project site. On-site recreational amenities are dispersed internal to the Project site, as well as on the northerly portion of the proposed Project site. Three pocket parks are equally spaced throughout the Project, at every fourth cluster of homes. The most westerly recreation area will include shade and ornamental trees, shrubs, groundcover, artificial turf and a dog run area. Community Pocket Parks “B”, “C”, and “D” shall also contain shade and ornamental trees, shrubs, groundcover, as well as a triangular garden area, tot lot, and circular garden area respectively. The average size of the Pocket Parks is 0.139 acres. Refer to Figure 7, Site Plan Review – Landscape Plan. A 6-foot-high block wall is proposed along the southerly property line. An alternated combination of 6-foot precision block wall with precision cap and a 6-foot-high precision block combo wall w/tubular steel (5' tubular steel on 2' block) is proposed on the northern property line. A 6-foot precision block wall is proposed along the easterly property line, as well as at the Project entry. Additional walls and fences are proposed internal to the Project. Refer to Figure 8, Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 4 Drive lane widths, internal to the proposed Project will be a minimum of 24 feet. Each of the units will have two enclosed parking spaces. Guest parking spaces are provided on-site and are included as part of the City’s formula for calculating required parking. These are located along the southerly drive lane and total 70 spaces. Handicap parking spaces will also be provided within the proposed Project, consistent with Code requirements. Building Architecture and Materials All units will be of wood frame construction and are designed to resemble a “California Spanish” style of architecture. The structures will be two-stories, with single story elements along the street, adding interest and articulation to the street scene, and providing a pedestrian scale to the development. Maximum proposed height is 28 feet. A total of eight elevations are proposed. Individual units range in size from approximately 1,354 square feet to 2,112 square feet. Building colors will be primarily earth tones. The following are the materials used: 1. Flat Concrete Tile Roof 2. 16/20 Sand Finish Stucco 3. Sand Finish Stucco Trim 4. Shaped Foam Corbels 5. Sand Finish Stucco Recess 6. Coach Light 7. House Number 8. Decorative Composite Shutter 9. Metal Roll-Up Garage Door Refer to Figures 9a-i, Site Plan Review – Elevations. Circulation The Project proposes one primary access point from a publically maintained roadway – Lower Azusa Road. This access will be gated. Following the Temple City Traffic Impact Study guidelines (which are based on the County of Los Angeles guidelines and requirements), a Project-specific Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared. Based on these guidelines, the TIS analyzed the following intersections within the Project “study area”: North-South Street East-West Street Encinita Avenue Lower Azusa Road Temple City Boulevard Lower Azusa Road According to the Temple City General Plan Circulation Element, Lower Azusa Road and Temple City Boulevard are classified as a Primary Roads. Encinita Avenue is classified as a Collector Road. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 5 Figure C, Existing Lanes Geometry and Intersection Controls, of the Project’s TIS, identifies the existing roadway conditions for the study area roadways. The number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection controls are identified. Existing (Adjusted) Traffic Volumes for the study area intersections are shown on Exhibit D of the TIS. These volumes were adjusted because existing traffic counts were taken in the summer, when school was not in session. Existing intersection level of service calculations are shown on Table 1, Intersection Analysis for Existing (Adjusted) Conditions, of the TIS. The City of Temple City has established Level of Service (LOS) “D” as the maximum allowable threshold for the intersection operations. Therefore, LOS “E” or “F” is considered unacceptable and requires improvement measures. The study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of service during the peak hours with the existing geometry and traffic controls. Drainage / Hydrology The existing site generally slopes in the southeasterly direction towards the existing railroad easement/tracks. The majority of the flows percolate through the gravel surface and excess flow drains southerly towards Temple City Boulevard. The site currently flows overland to the southern boundary line into the Union Pacific Railroad ROW. The site has approximately 19 feet of elevation change from the northwesterly corner to the southeasterly corner. The storm runoff will ultimately discharge into Eaton Wash. Eaton Wash flows into the Rio Hondo then converges with the San Gabriel River at Whittier Narrows, which will ultimately discharges to the Pacific Ocean. All proposed drainage facilities will be designed to accommodate 100-year storm flows generated on this relatively isolated site. Sewer and Water Facilities A 6-inch gravity sewer line is proposed for the Project. It will be located within the proposed drive lane on-site, and will connect to an existing sewer trunk line, located in Temple City Boulevard, off-site. The sewer line will traverse easterly from the Project site, across an adjacent portion of the Union Pacific Railroad ROW. Once in Temple City Boulevard, the sewer line will extend 130 feet southerly, under the Union Pacific Railroad track and right-of-way, to its ultimate connection point, which is an existing 15-inch VCP sewer in Temple City Boulevard. The total length of sewer line to be constructed on-site will be 1,645 feet. The total length of sewer line to be constructed off-site will be 752 feet. Reference Figure 10, Utility Plan. An existing 8-inch water line is located in Lower Azusa Road. The potable water system for the Project has been designed with 2-inch lateral lines extended to the units from a 4-inch main line on site. This 4-inch main line is within the Project drive lane, with a single point of connection at Lower Azusa Road. The water line is increased in size off-site to an 8-inch line as it connects to the existing water line in Lower Azusa Road. The fire water line is an 8-inch line and is also within the Project drive lane. As planned, there will be 1,220 linear feet of 2-inch line, 2,260 linear feet of 4-inch line and 2,150 linear feet of 8-inch fire water line. Reference Figure 10, Utility Plan. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 6 Utilities All utilities and public services are currently available on, or adjacent to, the proposed Project site. Utility and Service providers are as follows: • Electricity: Southern California Edison • Water: California American Water Co., San Gabriel County Water District • Sewer: City of Rosemead Sewer District • Cable: Charter Communications • Gas: Southern California Gas Company • Refuse: Athens Disposal Company Construction Scenario The Project is expected to begin construction in March 2013 and take approximately 24 months to complete, and will be constructed in phases. The phases of the construction activities are described below: Site Preparation The site preparation phase would consist of removing any vegetation, tree stumps, asbestos and lead based paint mitigation, and demolition of structures prior to grading, and will occur over 3-4 weeks and starting in March 2013. Demolition areas are as follows: • Existing Asphalt = 250,900 square feet • Existing Building (including shed) = 27,500 square feet Grading The grading would occur after the completion of the site preparation phase. Grading will disturb 6.22 acres, occurring over 4-5 weeks. There will be 5,820 cubic yards of cut and 5,490 cubic yards of fill, which will result in a net export of 330 Cubic Yards the proposed Project site. For purposes of this CEQA analysis it will be assumed that the export will be transported to a site that is within 5 miles of the Project site and that the site receiving the export will not require any additional analysis under CEQA. Building Construction The building construction would occur after the completion of the grading phase. Building construction is anticipated to occur over 22 months. Paving The paving would occur after the completion of the building construction phase. The paving phase was modeled as occurring over 2 month(s). Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 7 Architectural Coating The application of architectural coatings would occur after the completion of the paving phase. The architectural coating phase would occur over 3 month(s). Development Agreement The Project Sponsor will voluntarily be entering into a Development Agreement with the City that includes contributing funds for parks and affordable housing fee. The applicant is proposing to pay a $2,270.27 per unit fee ($168,000 total), more than four times the required $500.00 per unit park development fee. The City does not have an affordable housing fee for new developments. The applicant is proposing to pay a $2,121.62 per unit ($157,000 total). 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings) The Project site is bounded by the following uses: North: Lower Azusa Road, Eaton Wash, industrial and residential South: Railroad lines/ROW, single-family, vacant East: Storage lot, industrial West: Industrial, Railroad lines/right-of-way, residential, Encinita Elementary School, Rosemead High School, Rosemead Park Reference Figure 3, Aerial Photo. 10. Other agencies or entities whose approval may be required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) • Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) • Union Pacific Railroad ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.  Aesthetics  Agriculture and Forestry Resources  Air Quality  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Geology / Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Hydrology & Water Quality  Land Use / Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population / Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Transportation / Traffic  Utilities / Service Systems  Mandatory Findings of Significance Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 8 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation, the following finding is made: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Tom Dodson & Associates 11-5-13 Prepared by Date Signature Date City of Temple City Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply I. 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 SUBSTANTIATION: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact – Implementation of the Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Due to the location and setting of the proposed Project, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project would have any effect on a scenic vista. In addition, the proposed Project is similar in scale to existing residential and industrial uses in the proposed Project vicinity. Therefore, the Project site is not located in an area where it could have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Any impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact – Implementation of the Project will not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. None of these resources are located within or adjacent to the Project site. The existing site is not located adjacent to a scenic highway. Most of the site is currently paved, with a small section, along the concrete-lined channel, being covered with gravel. There are five structures on-site: two small, wood-framed buildings which are used for storage, two large metal-framed structures where milling activities were performed, and a house-like structure that appears to have been used as office and retail space. The entire Project site is surrounded by chain link fencing. Railroad tracks are located on-site, connecting the two large metal-framed structures and the joining the adjacent railway to the southwest of the Project site. No Project specific impacts to any scenic resources are anticipated and no mitigation is required. Redevelopment of the Project site with the proposed residential subdivision is forecast to enhance the existing visual setting. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact – Implementation of the Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. As noted in the preceding text discussion (I.b), most of the site is currently paved, with a small section, along the concrete-lined channel, being covered with gravel. There are five structures on-site: two small, wood-framed buildings which are used for Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 10 storage, two large metal-framed structures where milling activities were performed, and a house-like structure that appears to have been used as office and retail space. The entire Project site is surrounded by chain link fencing. Railroad tracks are located on-site, connecting the two large metal-framed structures and the joining the adjacent railway to the southwest of the Project site. The City required that photo simulations of the project site be prepared and these simulations verify that the project will enhance the visual character/quality of the Project site. Refer to Appendix 1 for a copy of these simulations. The impacts to visual quality are considered less than significant because the proposed Project will benefit the existing visual setting in the project area. No mitigation is required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact – Implementation of the Project will create a new source of light or glare which would affect day or nighttime views in the area. The Project will create a new source of lights – both from operation/habitation of the proposed Project, and from headlights/taillights from additional cars on the roadway. Although the City is predominantly developed, implementation of the proposed land use plan would allow for the development of underutilized parcels and vacant land. New development would incrementally contribute to lighting and glare impacts to the existing built environment. Increases in lighting from headlights/taillights from additional cars on the adjacent roadways will be incremental and will result in a less than significant impact. Increases in lighting from operation/habitation of the proposed Project will also be considered incremental. Due to the proposed location and setting of the proposed Project, any impacts will be considered less than significant. In addition, proposed Project impacts will be considered less than significant because the future lighting shall meet the City’s design policies for night lighting. No mitigation is required. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 11 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are signi- ficant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement metho- dology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? 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(g))? X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to 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 Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 12 SUBSTANTIATION: 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? No Impact – Implementation of the Project will not 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. The Project site is not is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not convert Farmland, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural uses. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact – Implementation of the Project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. The zoning for the Project site is M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing). According to Chapter 1, Article O, Part 2, Section 9420 (Permitted Uses) of the Zoning Code, no agricultural uses are permitted in this zone. In addition, the Project site was historically developed as a lumber yard and associated lumber business by the late 1960’s. The Project site is not within a Williamson Act contract. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. 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))? No Impact – The Project site is not located within forest land, timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, implementation of the Project will not 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)). No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact – The Project site is not located within forest land; therefore, implementation of the Project will not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest production use. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. 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? No Impact – This Project does not 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. Please reference Responses II.a-d above. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 13 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?  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 SUBSTANTIATION: The following information is abstracted from an air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) technical study titled “Air Quality and GHG Impact Analyses 9250 Lower Azusa Road, Temple City, California.” A copy of this study is provided as Appendix 2 to this document. Background Information Climate Temple City is situated in an area where the pollutants generated in coastal portions of the Los Angeles basin undergo photochemical reactions and then move inland across the project site during the daily sea breeze cycle. The resulting smog at times gives the western San Gabriel Valley some of the worst air quality in all of California. The worst air quality, however, has gradually been moving eastward. The area of heaviest ozone air pollution has gradually moved eastward from Pasadena in the 1960’s to Glendora and even Upland/Ontario in the 1990’s. Peak smog levels are now found in elevated mountain communi- ties such as Wrightwood or Crestline in response to the continuing shift of the smog maximum. Elevated smog levels nevertheless persist in the area during the warmer months of the year. Despite dramatic improvement in air quality in the local area throughout the last several decades, the project site is expected to continue to experience some unhealthful air quality until beyond 2020. For more in depth discussion of this issue, please refer to Appendix 2. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 14 Air Quality Setting In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed Olson Company Temple City residential project, those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however, that chronic exposure to ozone (the primary ingredient in photochemical smog) may lead to adverse respiratory health even at concentrations close to the ambient standard. National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended several times in air quality problem areas like Southern California. In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a rule, which extended and established a new attainment deadline for ozone for the year 2021. Because the State of California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table III-1. Sources and health effects of various pollutants are shown in Table III-2. Evaluation of the most current data on the health effects of inhalation of fine particulate matter prompted the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to recommend adoption of the statewide PM-2.5 standard that is more stringent than the federal standard. This standard was adopted in 2002. The State PM-2.5 standard is more of a goal in that it does not have specific attainment planning requirements like a federal clean air standard, but only requires continued progress towards attainment. Similarly, the ARB extensively evaluated health effects of ozone exposure. A new state standard for an 8-hour ozone exposure was adopted in 2005, which aligned with the exposure period for the federal 8-hour standard. The California 8-hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppm is more stringent than the federal 8-hour standard of 0.075 ppm. The state standard, however, does not have a specific attainment deadline. California air quality jurisdictions are required to make steady progress towards attaining state standards, but there are no hard deadlines or any consequences of non-attainment. During the same re-evaluation process, the ARB adopted an annual state standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) that is more stringent than the corresponding federal standard, and strengthened the state one-hour NO2 standard. In response to continuing evidence that ozone exposure at levels just meeting federal clean air standards is demonstrably unhealthful, EPA had proposed a further strengthening of the 8-hour standard. Draft standards were published. The anticipated future 8-hour standard was 0.065 ppm. Environmental organizations generally praised this proposal. Most manufacturing, transportation or power generation groups opposed the new standard as economically unwise in an uncertain fiscal climate. In recognition of the fact that a stronger ozone standard could adversely impact employment, that proposal has been placed on indefinite hold. A new federal one-hour standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) has also recently been adopted. This standard is more stringent than the existing state standard. Based upon air quality monitoring data in the South Coast Air Basin, the California Air Resources Board has requested the EPA to designate the basin as being in attainment for this standard. The federal standard for sulfur dioxide (SO 2) was also recently revised. However, with minimal combustion of coal and mandatory use of low sulfur fuels in California, SO2 is typically not a problem pollutant. For more in depth discussion of this issue, please refer to Appendix 2. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 15 Table III-1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Pollutant Average Time California Standards 1 National Standards 2 Concentration 3 Method 4 Primary 3,5 Secondary 3,6 Method 7 Ozone (O3) 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) Ultraviolet Photometry – Same as Primary Standard Ultraviolet Photometry 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (147 µg/m3) Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary Standard Inertial Separation and Gravimetric Analysis Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 – Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 8 24 Hour – – 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary Standard Inertial Separation and Gravimetric Analysis Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) Non-Dispersive Infrared Photometry (NDIR) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) – Non-Dispersive Infrared Photometry (NDIR) 8 Hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) – 8 Hour (Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 g/m3) – – Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 9 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3 ) Gas Phase Chemiluminescence 100 ppb (188 pg/m3) – Gas Phase Chemiluminescence Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as Primary Standard Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 10 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) Ultraviolet Fluorescence 75 ppb (196 pg/m3) – Ultraviolet Flourescense; Spectrophotometry (Paraosaniline Method) 3 Hour – – 0.5 ppm (1300 µg/m3) 24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm (for certain areas) 10 – Annual Arithmetic Mean – 0.030 ppm (for certain areas) 10 – Lead 8 11,12 30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 Atomic Absorption – – High Volume Sampler and Atomic Absorption Calendar Quarter – 1.5 µg/m3 (for certain areas) 12 Same as Primary Standard Rolling 3-Month Avg – 0.15 µg/m3) Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 16 Pollutant Average Time California Standards 1 National Standards 2 Concentration 3 Method 4 Primary 3,5 Secondary 3,6 Method 7 Visibility Reducing Particles 13 8 Hour See footnote 13 Beta Attenuation and Transmittance through Filter Tape No National Standards Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Ion Chromatography Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) Ultraviolet Fluorescence Vinyl Chloride 11 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) Gas Chromatography Footnotes 1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter – PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year, with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification and current federal policies. 3 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25 C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25 C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4 Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 5 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 6 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipate d adverse effects of a pollutant. 7 Reference method as described by the EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the EPA. 8 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 μg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained as 35 μg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years. 9 To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm. 10 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 17 11 The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. 12 The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. 13 In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively. Source: California Air Resources Board (6/4/2013) Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 18 Table III-2 HEALTH EFFECTS OF MAJOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Pollutants Sources Primary Effects Carbon Monoxide (CO)  Incomplete combustion of fuels and other carbon-containing substances, such as motor exhaust.  Natural events, such as decomposition of organic matter.  Reduced tolerance for exercise.  Impairment of mental function.  Impairment of fetal development.  Death at high levels of exposure.  Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina). Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)  Motor vehicle exhaust.  High temperature stationary combustion.  Atmospheric reactions.  Aggravation of respiratory illness.  Reduced visibility.  Reduced plant growth.  Formation of acid rain. Ozone (O3)  Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with nitrogen oxides in sunlight.  Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.  Irritation of eyes.  Impairment of cardiopulmonary function.  Plant leaf injury. Lead (Pb)  Contaminated soil.  Impairment of blood function and nerve construction.  Behavioral and hearing problems in children. Fine Particulate Matter (PM-10)  Stationary combustion of solid fuels.  Construction activities.  Industrial processes.  Atmospheric chemical reactions.  Reduced lung function.  Aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollutants.  Aggravation of respiratory and cardio respiratory diseases.  Increased cough and chest discomfort.  Soiling.  Reduced visibility. Fine Particulate Matter (PM-2.5)  Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, equipment, and industrial sources.  Residential and agricultural burning.  Industrial processes.  Also, formed from photochemical reactions of other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics.  Increases respiratory disease.  Lung damage.  Cancer and premature death.  Reduces visibility and results in surface soiling. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)  Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels.  Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores.  Industrial processes.  Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma, emphysema).  Reduced lung function.  Irritation of eyes.  Reduced visibility.  Plant injury.  Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, etc. Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 19 Baseline Air Quality Long-term air quality monitoring is carried out by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at various monitoring stations. There are no nearby stations that monitor the full spectrum of pollutants. Ozone, carbon monoxide, PM-2.5 and nitrogen oxides are monitored at the Pico Rivera facility, while 10-micron diameter particulate matter (PM-10) is measured at the Azusa station. Table III-3 summarizes the last five years of monitoring data from a composite of these data resources. The following conclusions can be drawn from this data: 1. Photochemical smog (ozone) levels occasionally exceed standards. The 8-hour state ozone standard as well as the 1-hour state standard have been exceeded slightly more than one percent of all days in the past five years. The 8-hour federal standard has been exceeded nine times for the same period. While ozone levels are still high, they are much lower than 10 to 20 years ago. Attainment of all clean air standards in the project vicinity is not likely to occur soon, but the severity and frequency of violations is expected to continue to slowly decline during the current decade 2. Measurements of carbon monoxide have shown very low baseline levels in comparison to the most stringent one- and eight-hour standards. 3. Respirable dust (PM-10) levels exceed the state standard on approximately 14 percent of measurement days, but the less stringent federal PM-10 standard has not been violated once for the same period. Year to year fluctuations of overall maximum 24-hour PM-10 levels seem to follow no discernible trend, though 2011 had the lowest maximum 24-hour concentration in recent history. 4. A substantial fraction of PM-10 is comprised of ultra-small diameter particulates capable of being inhaled into deep lung tissue (PM-2.5). Year 2010 showed the fewest violations in recent years. Both the frequency of violations of particulate standards, as well as high percentage of PM-2.5, are occasional air quality concerns in the project area. Less than two percent of all days exceeded the current national 24-hour standard of 35 g/m 3 from 2008-2012 Although complete attainment of every clean air standard is not yet imminent, extrapolation of the steady improvement trend suggests that such attainment could occur within the reasonably near future. Air Quality Planning Please refer to Appendix 2 for an in depth discussion of Air Quality Planning for the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). The most recent Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) developed by the SCAQMD was submitted to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 2012 and it will be submitted to the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval in the near future once it is approved. The SoCAB is presently designated non-attainment for ozone and particulate pollutants. The 2012 AQMP includes programs and measures designed to bring the SoCAB into compliance with the federal ambient air quality standards listed in Table III-1 by 2024. Significance Thresholds Air quality impacts are considered “significant” if they cause clean air standards to be violated where they are currently met, or if they “substantially” contribute to an existing violation of standards. Any substantial emissions of air contaminants for which there is no safe exposure, or nuisance emissions such as dust or odors, would also be considered a significant impact. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 20 Table III-3 AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY 2008-2012 (Number of Days Standards Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels During Such Violations) (Entries shown as ratios = samples exceeding standard/samples taken) Pollutant/Standard 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Ozone 1-Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 7 8 1 1 5 8-Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) 12 6 1 1 6 8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F) 5 3 1 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.11 Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.08 Carbon Monoxide 1-Hour > 20. ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0 1-Hour > 9. ppm (S, F) 0 0 0 0 0 Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.9 2.5 2.3 2.7 xx Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.1 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.2 Nitrogen Dioxide 1-Hour > 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0 Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.08 Inhalable Particulates (PM-10) 24-Hour > 50 g/m3 (S) 12/49 7/52 5/55 8/61 6/61 24-Hour > 150 g/m3 (F) 0/49 0/52 0/55 0/61 0/61 Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 96. 72. 68. 63. 78. Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM-2.5) 24-Hour > 35 g/m3 (F)* 4/114 2/118 0/117 1/114 1/119 Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 47.2 71.0 34.9 41.2 45.3 xx data not available S = State Standard F = Federal Standard Source: South Coast AQMD – Pico Rivera Air Monitoring Station for Ozone, CO, NOx and PM2.5; Azusa Monitoring Station for PM10 data: www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 21 Appendix G of the California CEQA Guidelines offers the following five tests of air quality impact significance. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it: a. Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b. Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. c. Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants 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. Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e. Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Primary Pollutants Air quality impacts generally occur on two scales of motion. Near an individual source of emissions or a collection of sources such as a crowded intersection or parking lot, levels of those pollutants that are emitted in their already unhealthful form will be highest. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an example of such a pollutant. Primary pollutant impacts can generally be evaluated directly in comparison to appropriate clean air standards. Violations of these standards where they are currently met, or a measurable worsening of an existing or future violation, would be considered a significant impact. Many particulates, especially fugitive dust emissions, are also primary pollutants. Because of the non-attainment status of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) for PM-10, an aggressive dust control program is required to control fugitive dust during project construction. Secondary Pollutants Many pollutants, however, require time to transform from a more benign form to a more unhealthful contaminant. Their impact occurs regionally far from the source. Their incremental regional impact is minute on an individual basis and cannot be quantified except through complex photochemical computer models. Analysis of significance of such emissions is based upon a specified amount of emissions (pounds, tons, etc.) even though there is no way to translate those emissions directly into a corresponding ambient air quality impact. Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily emissions that exceed any of the following emission thresholds are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA guidelines. DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS Pollutant Construction Operations ROG 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PM-10 150 150 PM-2.5 55 55 SOx 150 150 Lead 3 3 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 22 Additional Indicators In its CEQA Handbook, the SCAQMD also states that additional indicators should be used as screening criteria to determine the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. The additional indicators are as follows:  Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation  Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP and in other than planned locations for the project’s build- out year.  Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook also identifies various secondary significance criteria related to toxic, hazardous or odorous air contaminants. Except for the small diameter particulate matter (“PM-2.5”) fraction of diesel exhaust generated by heavy construction equipment, there are no secondary impact indicators associated with residential project construction and subsequent occupancy. For diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions, adopted policies require the gradual conversion of delivery fleets to diesel alternatives, or the use of cleaner diesel engines whose emissions are demonstrated to be as low as those from alternative fuels. Similarly, off-road equipment used in construction activities is also becoming progressively cleaner every year. If project development occurs in the more distant future, DPM emissions from project construction equipment will be correspondingly less. Because health risks from toxic air contaminants (TAC’s) are cumulative over an assumed 70-year lifespan, measurable off-site public health risk from diesel TAC exposure would occur for only a brief portion of a project lifetime, and only in dilute quantity. Sensitive Receptors Air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons with the greatest sensitivity to air pollution exposure. Such persons are called “sensitive receptors.” Sensitive population groups include young children, the elderly and the acutely and chronically ill (especially those with cardio-respiratory disease). Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may be occupied for extended periods, and residents may be outdoors when exposure is highest. Schools are similarly considered to be sensitive receptors. The closest existing sensitive use to the proposed project are the single family residences south of the site, beyond the railway right-of-way, accessed via Pitkin Street. Impact Analysis a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact – Projects such as the proposed Olson Company residential development do not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing general development. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth- accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less-than-significant only because consistency with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project-specific basis. As the analysis of project-related emissions provided below indicates, the proposed project will not cause or be exposed to significant air pollution, and is, therefore, consistent with the applicable air quality plan. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 23 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? Construction Activity Impacts: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Dust is typically the primary concern during construction of new homes and infrastructure. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions.” Emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). These parameters are not known with any reasonable certainty prior to project development and may change from day to day. Any assignment of specific parameters to an unknown future date is speculative and conjectural. Because of the inherent uncertainty in the predictive factors for estimating fugitive dust generation, regulatory agencies typically use one universal "default" factor based on the area disturbed assuming that all other input parameters into emission rate prediction fall into midrange average values. This assumption may or may not be totally applicable to site-specific conditions on the proposed project site. As noted previously, emissions estimation for project-specific fugitive dust sources is therefore characterized by a considerable degree of imprecision. Average daily PM-10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance average about 10 pounds per acre. This estimate presumes the use of reasonably available control measures (RACMs). The SCAQMD requires the use of best available control measures (BACMs) for fugitive dust from construction activities. With the use of BACMs, fugitive dust emissions can be reduced to 1-2 pounds per day per acre disturbed. Current research in particulate-exposure health suggests that the most adverse effects derive from ultra- small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as sulfates, nitrates or organic material. A national clean air standard for particulate matter of 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (called "PM-2.5") was adopted in 1997. A limited amount of construction activity particulate matter is in the PM-2.5 range. PM-2.5 emissions are estimated to comprise 10-20 percent of PM-10. In addition to fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere semi-indefinitely, construction activities generate many larger particles with shorter atmospheric residence times. This dust is comprised mainly of large diameter inert silicates that are chemically non-reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These fugitive dust particles are therefore more of a potential soiling nuisance as they settle out on parked cars, outdoor furniture or landscape foliage rather than causing any adverse health hazard. The CalEEMod was developed by the SCAQMD and provides a model to calculate both construction emissions and operational emissions from a residential or commercial land use project. It calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The CalEEMod 2013.2.2 computer model was used to calculate emissions from the default construction equipment fleet and schedule anticipated by CalEEMod for a land use consisting of 74 townhomes assuming that the entire project would be built at once. The default equipment fleet and schedule durations assumed by CalEEMod that were used for modeling are shown in Table III-4. Activity durations were provided by the project construction engineer and the equipment fleet is the CalEEMod default for the indicated activities for a project of this size. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 24 Table III-4 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY EQUIPMENT FLEET Phase Name and Duration Equipment Demolition (30 days 12,000 tons debris/haul)* 1 Concrete Saw 1 Dozer 2 Loader / Backhoes Site Preparation (1 day) 1 Grader 1 Loader / Backhoe Grading (5 days) 5,000 CY Import 1 Concrete Saw 1 Dozer 2 Loader / Backhoes Construction (100 days) 1 Crane 2 Forklifts 2 Loader / Backhoes Paving (5 days) 4 Mixers 1 Pavers 1 Loader / Backhoe 1 Roller * 250,900 sf asphalt, 27,500 sf building Utilizing the indicated equipment fleet shown in Tables III-4 the following worst case daily construction emissions are calculated by CalEEMod 2013.2.2 and are listed in Table III-5. Table III-5 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY EMISSIONS MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSIONS (pounds/day) Maximal Construction Emissions ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 2014 Unmitigated 6.0 70.8 51.2 0.1 17.0 5.6 Mitigated* 6.0 70.8 51.2 0.1 9.1 3.8 2015 Unmitigated 10.1 31.1 23.4 0.0 2.8 2.2 Mitigated 10.1 31.1 23.4 0.0 2.8 2.2 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Peak daily construction activity emissions are estimated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds without the need for added mitigation. The only model-based mitigation measure applied for this project was watering exposed dirt surfaces at least three times per day as required per SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), to minimize the generation of fugitive dust. Construction equipment exhaust contains carcinogenic compounds within the diesel exhaust particulates. The toxicity of diesel exhaust is evaluated relative to a 24-hour per day, 365 days per year, 70-year lifetime exposure. The SCAQMD does not generally require the analysis of construction-related diesel Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 25 emissions relative to health risk due to the short period for which the majority of diesel exhaust would occur. Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis (LSTs) The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition to the more regional emissions-based thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1-4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD’s Mobile Source Committee in February 2005. Use of an LST analysis for a project is optional. For the proposed project, the primary source of possible LST impact would be during construction. LSTs are applicable for a sensitive receptor where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours such as a residence, hospital or convalescent facility. LST screening tables are available for varying source-receptor distances. For this project the nearest sensitive use would be the residences south of the project site such that a 120 foot source receptor distance was selected for analysis. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute measurably to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs. LST pollutant screening level concentration data is currently published for 1, 2 and 5 acre disturbance sites for varying distances. For this project the most stringent thresholds appropriate for a 1 acre disturbance area were used. The applicable thresholds and emissions are shown in Table III-6. Table III-6 LST AND PROJECT EMISSIONS (pounds/day) LST 1.0 acres/ 120 feet East San Gabriel Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5 LST Threshold 784 100 10 4 Max On-Site Emissions * Demolition Unmitigated 36 50 15 4 Mitigated 36 50 8 3 Grading Unmitigated 27 41 9 6 Mitigated 27 41 5 3 Construction Unmitigated 19 31 2 2 Mitigated 19 31 2 2 Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 26 LST 1.0 acres/ 120 feet East San Gabriel Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5 Paving Unmitigated 15 25 1 1 Mitigated 15 25 1 1 CalEEMod Output in Appendix *excludes construction commuting, vendor deliveries and emissions associated with haul trucking. LSTs were compared to the maximum daily mitigated construction activities. As seen above, mitigated emissions are below the LST thresholds for construction. LST impacts are less-than-significant. The only mitigation measure applied was the following dust suppression measure:  Water exposed surfaces at least 3 times per day for fugitive dust suppression Occupancy Impacts Project uses would generate 430 daily trips according to trip generation estimates provided by the project traffic consultant. Operational emissions for the proposed uses were calculated using CalEEMod2013.2 for a project build-out year of 2016. Operational emissions for the proposed residential use assume inclusion of gas hearths rather than wood burning fireplaces and are shown in Table III-7. Wood burning fireplaces may not be installed in new construction unless natural gas service is unavailable withi n reasonable distance. Such service is assumed to be available within the proposed project. Therefore, this measure is a matter of compliance with SCAQMD Rule 445 and not discretionary mitigation. Table III-7 DAILY OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Operational Emissions (lbs/day) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 Area 1.9 0.1 6.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 Energy 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mobile 1.6 4.7 19.5 0.0 3.2 0.9 Total 3.5 5.1 25.8 0.0 3.1 1.0 1.0SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Output in Appendix The project would not cause any operational emissions to exceed their respective SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. Operational emission impacts are judged to be less than significant. Microscale Impact Analysis There is a direct relationship between traffic/circulation congestion and CO impacts since exhaust fumes from vehicular traffic are the primary source of CO. CO is a localized gas that dissipates very quickly under normal meteorological conditions. Therefore, CO concentrations decrease substantially as distance from the source (intersection) increases. The highest CO concentrations are typically found in areas directly adjacent to congested roadway intersections. These areas of vehicle congestion have historically had the potential to create pockets of elevated levels of CO which are called “hot spots.” However, with the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of control Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 27 technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the project vicinity have steadily declined as shown based on historical air quality monitoring data provided in Table 3. Micro-scale air quality impacts have traditionally been analyzed in environmental documents where the region was a non-attainment area for carbon monoxide (CO). However, the SCAQMD has demonstrated in the CO attainment redesignation request to EPA that there are no “hot spots” anywhere in Southern California, even at intersections with much higher volumes, much worst congestion, and much higher background CO levels than anywhere in the project area. If the worst-case intersections in the air basin have no “hot spot” potential, any local impacts near the project site will be well below thresholds with an even larger margin of safety. A project is considered to have significant impacts if project-related mobile-source emissions result in an exceedance of the California one-hour and eight-hour CO standards, which are:  1-hour = 20 ppm  8-hour = 9 ppm The existing peak one-hour local CO background level in 2012 in the project area vicinity was 2.7 ppm. The maximum ambient 8-hour CO concentration in 2012 was 2.4 ppm. In order to cause an exceedance of the CO standard a threefold worsening of total automotive traffic would be required. The proposed project is expected to generate 430 daily trips which would add to roadways dispersed over roadways with traffic volumes of 14,000 vehicles per day. The impact of these 430 daily trips is further minimized as project traffic is distributed across multiple roadway segments. For a 50/50 split in project-related traffic at the Lower Azusa Road site access point, the incremental increase to on-road traffic will be less than 2 percent. Project impact would not cause an exceedance of CO standards. Railroad Proximity Health Impacts Railroad engines are significant emitters of diesel particulate matter (DPM). DPMs are known carcinogens. Health risk studies have been conducted in the vicinity of very large rail yards. No similar studies have been conducted along any single rail line by any state agency such as the California ARB. A variety of health risk assessments (HRAs) have been conducted for placing sensitive receivers such as new homes close to individual tracks. While the health risk in terms of an increased cancer probability is not as great near a given set of tracks as near an entire rail yard, such a risk is not negligible. An HRA conducted at the fence-line of the UPRR tracks in Ontario for the Guasti General Plan calculated an individual excess cancer probability of 265 in a million from 42 daily freight trains passing the site. The study used the standard conservative assumptions that each receptor would stand at a single location at the fence-line for the next 70 years without ever leaving that spot. It also assumed that no improvements in train exhaust emissions would occur for 70 years. Given that the prevailing meteorology in Ontario is very similar to Temple City, it is possible to adjust that finding for local project conditions to obtain a reasonable order of magnitude estimate as follows: Parameter Ontario Temple City Adjustment No. of Freights 42 14 -67% DPM (70 years) 0.10 0.03 -70% Age Sensitivity Factor 1.0 1.7 +70% Distance Factor 1.0 0.8 -20% Residential Duration (yrs) 70 30 -57% Net Change -94% Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 28 Adjustment of the Ontario HRA findings to a realistic set of input assumptions for the Temple City project site would reduce the worst-case excess cancer risk from 265 in a million to 15.3 in a million at the property line of the proposed project. This exceeds the recommended SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold of 10 in a million. However, this conclusion includes one more overly conservative assumption that each receiver will remain outside on the front porch for the next 30 years without ever leaving the property or going inside. Interior DPM exposure is less than outside as dust settles on furniture, carpets, drapes, etc. With a reasonable assumption as to the fraction of time the average person spends inside or is completely away from home, rail proximity health risk impact is less-than-significant. To further support this conclusion, prudent protection measures are recommended for minimizing DPM exposure to future project residents both inside and outside their homes. These measures are presented in the following section. Mitigation Measures III-1 Fugitive Dust Construction activities are not anticipated to cause dust emissions to exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. Nevertheless, mitigation through enhanced dust control measures is recommended for use because of the non-attainment status of the air basin.  Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive disturbed areas.  Prepare and implement a high wind dust control plan.  Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed.  Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas.  Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed.  Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials.  Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone  Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard  Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site III-2 Exhaust Emission Controls Similarly, ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) are calculated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. However, because of the regional non- attainment for photochemical smog, the use of reasonably available control measures for diesel exhaust is recommended.  Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.  Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or cleaner heavy equipment.  Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment. III-3 Occupancy Emissions Operational emissions are not anticipated to exceed their respective SCAQMD significance thresholds with application of the following measure:  Utilize SCAQMD approved Rule 445 devices rather than wood burning fireplaces for any residential use. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 29  All residential living areas shall be equipped with air filtration systems operating under positive pressure rated at MERV 14 or higher.  Replacement filters shall be made available through the HOA for the project.  The substantial tree canopy shall be established along the southern site boundary to act as a living bio-filter for particulate pollution. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact – Heavy-duty equipment in the proposed Project area during construction will emit odors; however, the construction activity would cease to occur after a short period of time and diesel odors are common in the environment, particularly adjacent to the railroad tracks. No other sources of objectionable odors have been identified for the proposed Project, and the impact from diesel odors is not forecast to result in a significant odor impact at the project location. No mitigation measures are required. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 30 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply IV. 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?  X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 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? X d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?  X SUBSTANTIATION: 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact – Implementation of the Project will not 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 Wildlife (CDFW) (formerly Department of Fish and Game) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). There are no candidate, sensitive, or special-status species located on the proposed Project site. Most of Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 31 the site is currently paved, with a small section, along the concrete-lined channel, being covered with gravel. There are five (5) structures on-site: two (2) small, wood-framed buildings which are used for storage, two (2), large metal-framed structures where milling activities were performed, and a house-like structure that appears to have been used as office and retail space. All of this will be demolished in order to implement the proposed Project. Due to this information, no further analysis is needed. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. 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 Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact – Implementation of the Project will not 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 CDFW or USFWS. There are no sensitive natural communities within the proposed Project site. Implementation of the Project would have no impact on sensitive natural communities. In addition, the Project site has been developed with structures and facilities that will be demolished to implement the proposed Project, as discussed in IV.a, above. Due to this information, no further analysis is needed. 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? No Impact – Implementation of the Project will not 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. There are no wetlands on the proposed Project site. Therefore, the Project would not have an impact on any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In addition, the Project site has been developed with structures and facilities that will be demolished to implement the proposed Project, as discussed in IV.a, above. Due to this information, no further analysis is needed. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. 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? No Impact – Implementation of the Project will not 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. There is no native habitat on the proposed Project site; therefore there are no wildlife movement corridors at the proposed Project site. In addition, the Project site has been developed with structures and facilities that will be demolished to implement the proposed Project, as discussed in IV.a, above. Implementation of the Project would have no impact on wildlife movement or the use of wildlife nursery sites. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact – Implementation of the Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. There are approximately four trees on the proposed Project site that are dispersed on the site and do not appear to be sited for any aesthetic or landscaping purposes. These trees shall be removed as part of the demolition of the site in preparation for the proposed Project. The City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance that would apply to the proposed Project. No impacts are anticipated to these trees and no mitigation is required. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 32 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? No Impact – Implementation of the Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. There are no Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans in effect within the City. In addition, the Project site has been developed with structures and facilities that will be demolished to implement the proposed Project, as discussed in IV.a above. Due to this information, no further analysis is needed. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 33 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in '15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleon- tological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X SUBSTANTIATION: a&b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in '15064.5; or, cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – According to the Historical/Archaeological Resources Records Search Assessor's Parcel No. 5343-008-903 City of Temple City, Los Angeles County, California CRM TECH Contract No. 2749, prepared by CRM TECH, dated October 18, 2013 (HARRS), CRM TECH completed a historical/archaeological resources records search on the proposed Project site (provided as Appendix 3). The focus of the records search consisted of approximately 6.3 acres of partially developed land located at 9250 Lower Azusa Road, in a portion of the Rancho San Francisquito (Dalton) land grant lying within T1S R11W, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (see Figure 1 of the HARRS). Methods and Procedures The South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton, provided the records search service for the HARRS. The SCCIC is the official cultural resource records repository for Los Angeles County, and a part of the California Historical Resource Information System, established and maintained under the auspices of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation. During the records search, Lindsey Noyes, SCCIC Lead Staff Researcher, checked records and maps on file at the SCCIC for previously identified historical/archaeological resources in or near the proposed Project area and existing cultural resources reports pertaining to the proposed Project vicinity. Previously identified historical/archaeological resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks or Points of Historical Interest as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources Inventory. Results and Findings The SCCIC records indicate two linear studies within a quarter-mile radius of the proposed Project location, including a 1997 study covering a segment of Abilene Street to the southeast and a 1999 study for a proposed fiber optic cable along the southwestern boundary of the proposed Project site. The Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 34 records further indicate that 14 historic-period sites have been recorded within the quarter-mile radius. One of these, designated Site 19-190502, represents the Southern California Edison Mesa-Anita-Eaton 66kV power transmission line, which was determined not to qualify for the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. Another linear site, 19-186112, represents the San Gabriel-Pomona line of the Southern Pacific Railroad, which runs immediately outside the southwestern proposed Project boundary. This rail line, now a part of the Union Pacific Railroad, was constructed in 1874-1877. As a component of the first major railroad system in California, the line played an important role in the growth of the State and the region in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Due to the lack of historic integrity to relate to that period, however, Site 19- 186112 was determined not to qualify for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. The other 12 recorded sites within the scope of the records search were all buildings that were found ineligible for any historical designation, and none of them was located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project area. No prehistoric—i.e., Native American—cultural remains have been recorded in or near the proposed Project area. It is anticipated that, based on the highly disturbed nature of the proposed Project site and its immediate surroundings, that the potential for Native American remains to be located below the proposed Project site surface would be extremely low. However, if buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with the Project, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: V-1 Should any cultural resources be encountered during construction of these facilities, earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection shall be performed immediately by a qualified archaeologist. This professional shall assess the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. Other Sources Consulted In addition to the cultural resources studies reported to the SCCIC, in 2012 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. of Redlands completed an environmental assessment on the proposed Project area, which included reviews of historic maps, aerial photographs, and city directories. Based on these sources, the 2012 study states that the proposed Project area was evidently vacant prior to 1956, but was later occupied by buildings and other facilities associated with a lumber enterprise that began operation some time between 1956 and 1968. As of 2012, five structures and a railroad siding remained extant within the proposed Project site. It should be noted that the 2012 Stantec study does not constitute a standard cultural resources survey required by CEQA despite the historical sources that were consulted. Its findings from the historical sources have not been reported to the SCCIC, nor have the structures and other features noted in the Project area treated with focused historical background research, recorded into the California Historical Resources Inventory, or evaluated for potential historic significance under CEQA provisions. Sources consulted during the HARRS suggest that the proposed Project area has not been surveyed systematically for cultural resources, but the presence of structures and other features associated with a late historic-period lumber enterprise in the proposed Project area has been reported by a 2012 environmental study. These features may be more than 45 years old, and thus may meet the age threshold set forth by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation for recordation into the California Historical Resources Inventory. Based on this information, the following mitigation measures shall be required, prior to demolition of any of the structures on site: Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 35 V-2 Prior to any demolition, or disturbances on the proposed Project site, a field inspection of the Project area, including all existing buildings and other built- environment features within the proposed Project boundaries. Since the Project area is fully developed and virtually all open space is covered with pavement, gravel or structures, with no undisturbed ground surface visible, field procedures shall be focused primarily on buildings, structures, objects, and other features that appeared to date to the historic period—i.e., more than 45 years of age. V-3 Any cultural resources within, or adjacent to, the proposed Project site shall be analyzed to determine whether such resources meet the official definition of "historical resources," as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in particular CEQA. Based on this analysis, a detailed mitigation plan, if necessary, shall be developed and implemented. With mitigation incorporation, potential for impact to cultural resources will be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated – Due to the previous disturbance and development of the site, the potential for discovering paleontological resources during development of the Project is also considered highly unlikely. No unique geologic features are known or suspected to occur on or beneath the site. These resources are located beneath the surface and can only be discovered as a result of ground disturbance activities; therefore, the following measure shall be implemented: V-4 Should any paleontologic resources be encountered during construction of these facilities, earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection should be performed immediately by a qualified paleontologist. This professional shall assess the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. With incorporation of this contingency mitigation, potential for impact to paleontological resources will be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact – The Project site is highly disturbed and has been previously developed. No available information suggests that human remains may occur on the Project site and the potential for such an occurrence is considered very low. State and local laws (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code) require that local law enforcement agencies be notified (local Police Department, County Sheriff and Coroner’s Office) if human remains are encountered. Compliance with these laws is considered adequate mitigation for potential impacts and no further mitigation is required. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 36 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply VI. 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: - 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. X - Strong seismic ground shaking? X - Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X - 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 onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? X SUBSTANTIATION: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: - 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. No Impact – According to the Revised Geotechnical Due-Diligence Report, Proposed Residential Development, 9250 Lower Azusa Road, Temple City, California, prepared by Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc., dated October 4, 2012 (Geo Report), p. 4, Geologic literature and field exploration do not indicate Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 37 the presence of active faulting within the proposed Project site. The proposed Project site does not lie within an “Earthquake Fault Zone” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. According to p. 6 of the Geo Report, the potential for ground rupture due to an earthquake beneath the proposed Project site is considered very low. No impacts are anticipated due to 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. - Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The Project site is located within seismically active southern California. According to the Geo Report (p. 6), the site is in a seismically active area that historically been affected by generally moderate to occasionally high levels of ground motion. The proposed Project site lies in relative proximity to several active faults; therefore, during the life of the proposed structures, the property will probably experience similar moderate to occasionally high ground shaking from these fault zones, as well as some background shaking from other seismic active areas of the Southern California region. Design and construction in accordance with the current California Building Code (C.B.C.) requirements is anticipated to adequately address potential ground shaking. In addition, the following mitigation measure will ensure that structures are protected during a major seismic event and that ground shaking impacts to inhabited residential structures will be reduced to a less than significant level. VI-1 All inhabited structures shall be designed to do the following: a. Resist minor earthquakes without damage; b. Resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some nonstructural damage; and c. Resist major earthquakes, of the intensity or severity of the strongest forecast to occur within the City of Temple City, without collapse, but with some structural, as well as nonstructural damage. No additional mitigation is required. - Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – A liquefaction analysis was performed and the conclusion of this analysis is contained in the Geo Report. According to the Geo Report (p. 6), liquefaction may occur below the proposed Project site if the peak horizontal ground accelerations were to occur concurrent with a significant rise in groundwater levels. If strong ground shaking occurred coincident with historic high groundwater levels, then liquefaction could occur as shallow as 25 to 30 feet below the current ground surface. The total seismic settlement was determined to potentially be considered relatively high; however, it was concluded that past performance of wood-frame structures has shown that such movement does not typically result in compromising the structural integrity of the building. The following mitigation measure shall be implemented: VI-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, additional analysis shall be performed to determine the depth of groundwater levels. If said levels are not likely to rise above a depth of 50 feet, then no special mitigation is required. If the groundwater level exceeds this threshold, then hazards from liquefaction shall be mitigated to “acceptable levels” in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 3721(a). Methods to reduce liquefaction hazards may include, but not be limited to: Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 38 a. Well-reinforced foundations; b. Post-tensioned slabs; c. Grade beams with structural slabs; or d. Mat foundations. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, any potential impacts to the proposed from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. - Landslides? No Impact – The topography of the proposed Project site is relatively flat. Based on this information, the potential for landslides is considered very low. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact – Implementation of the proposed Project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The entire Project site has been previously disturbed from building and hardscape improvements. It is very unlikely that there is any native topsoil remaining on the Project site as the previous development occurred on a man-made, engineered fill; therefore, any loss would be minimal, if at all. Lastly, the Project is not used for agricultural purposes; therefore, the presence of topsoil on site is not necessary relative to the proposed Project. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. 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 onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Please reference responses VI.a, VI.b, and VI.d. Based on this information, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project is 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 onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Compliance with the C.B.C., as well as Mitigation Measures VI-1 and VI-2 will ensure that any potential impacts that could create substantial geotechnical risks to life or property are reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – According to the Geo Report (p.7), the near-surface soils within the proposed Project site are generally anticipated to possess a very low expansion potential. Based on this information, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project is located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. Compliance with the C.B.C., as well as Mitigation Measures VI-1 and VI-2 will ensure that any potential impacts that could create substantial geotechnical risks to life or property are reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact – Due to the nature of the Project, the issue of whether implementation of the Project will have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater is not pertinent. The Project will be connected to the regional wastewater collection and treatment system. Thus, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 39 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X SUBSTANTIATION: The following information is abstracted from an air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) technical study titled “Air Quality and GHG Impact Analyses 9250 Lower Azusa Road, Temple City, California.” A copy of this study is provided as Appendix 2 to this document. Background Information “Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as “global warming.” These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions. California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368, EO S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07. AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to maintain California’s reputation as a “national and international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship.” It will have wide-ranging effects on California businesses and lifestyles as well as far reaching effects on other states and countries. A unique aspect of AB 32, beyond its broad and wide-ranging mandatory provisions and dramatic GHG reductions are the short time frames within which it must be implemented. Major components of the AB 32 include:  Require the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions beginning with sources or categories of sources that contribute the most to statewide emissions.  Requires immediate “early action” control programs on the most readily controlled GHG sources.  Mandates that by 2020, California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels.  Forces an overall reduction of GHG gases in California by 25-40%, from business as usual, to be achieved by 2020.  Must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to reduce toxic air contaminants. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 40 Statewide, the framework for developing the implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way. Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, from greater use of renewable energy and from increased structural energy efficiency. Additionally, through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR now called the Climate Action Reserve), general and industry-specific protocols for assessing and reporting GHG emissions have been developed. GHG sources are categorized into direct sources (i.e. company owned) and indirect sources (i.e. not company owned). Direct sources include combustion emissions from on- and off-road mobile sources, and fugitive emissions. Indirect sources include off-site electricity generation and non-company owned mobile sources. Thresholds of Significance In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March, 2010. The CEQA Appendix G guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it:  Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or  Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated. The process is broken down into quantification of project-related GHG emissions, making a determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility. Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards. CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to “select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate.” The most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CalEEMod, as was used in the ensuing analysis. The significance of those emissions then must be evaluated; the selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration what level of GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The guidelines are clear that they do not support a zero net emissions threshold. If the lead agency does not have sufficient expertise in evaluating GHG impacts, it may rely on thresholds adopted by an agency with greater expertise. On December 5, 2008 the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an Interim quantitative GHG Significance Threshold for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency (e.g., stationary source permit projects, rules, plans, etc.) of 10,000 Metric Tons (MT) CO 2 equivalent/year. In September 2010, the Working Group released revisions which recommended a threshold of 3,500 MT CO 2e for residential projects. This 3,500 MT/year recommendation has been used as a guideline for this analysis. Some jurisdictions have adopted a numerical annual GHG emissions level as a CEQA threshold of significance. Others have taken the numerical threshold to be an indicator level that signals a requirement for incorporating reasonable and feasible enhanced “green” building practices without formal adoption of an absolute significance standard. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact – Construction Activity GHG Emissions Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 41 The build-out timetable for this project is assumed to be less than 2 years. During project construction, the CalEEMod2013.2.2 computer model predicts that the construction activities will generate the annual CO2(e) emissions identified in Table VII-1. Table VII-1 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (Metric Tons CO2(e)) CO2(e) Year 2014 467.9 Year 2015 71.4 Overall Total 539.3 Amortized 18.0 * CalEEMod Output provided in appendix SCAQMD GHG emissions policy from construction activities is to amortize emissions over a 30-year lifetime. The amortized level is also provided. GHG impacts from construction are considered individually less-than-significant. Project Occupancy GHG Emissions The input assumptions for operational GHG emissions calculations, and the GHG conversion from consumption to annual regional CO2(e) emissions, are summarized in the CalEEMod2013.2.2 output files found in the appendix to Appendix 2 of this document. The total operational and annualized construction emissions are identified in Table VII-2. Table VII-2 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Consumption Source MT CO2(e) tons/year Area Sources 24.9 Energy Utilization 150.7 Mobile Source 647.6 Solid Waste Generation 15.5 Water Consumption 33.7 Annualized Construction 18.0 Total 890.4 Significance Threshold 3,500 Total project GHG emissions are less than the proposed significance threshold of 3,500 MT. GHG emissions for the proposed project are less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact – The City of Temple City is part of a unified regional framework for meeting long-term energy efficiency goals. The Energy Efficiency Plan project, funded by California utility ratepayers and administered by Southern California Edison (SCE) was awarded to the SVGCOG to implement activities to achieve statewide energy efficiency goals. The Plan is intended to provide a Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 42 roadmap to help Temple City meet AB-32 GHG emissions reduction targets by defining the City's long- term vision and commitment to achieve energy efficiency in the community and in municipal operations. In January, 2013, Temple City completed an Energy Action Plan (EAP). The baseline GHG inventory and future GHG emissions for the City were identified based on activities and energy consumption from community and municipal activities. The following goals were recognized in the report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Achieve a 15% reduction below baseline community-wide GHG emissions levels by 2020. Residential Electricity • Achieve a 10% reduction below baseline residential electricity use by 2020. Nonresidential Electricity • Achieve a 10% reduction below baseline nonresidential electricity use by 2020. Municipal Electricity • Achieve Platinum Level status in SCE’s Energy Leader Partnership by reducing municipal electricity use. To achieve the electricity reduction targets for each electricity sector, the City has identified a set of goals, policies, actions, and projects to be implemented. The report recognized that since Temple City is mostly build out, new development in the future should tend towards higher density housing and mixed use facilities to maximize the use of limited space. For new building construction the EAP identifies following recommended actions:  Encourage project applicants to install energy-efficient appliances within new and renovated buildings by highlighting the potential cost savings to project applicants and property owners.  Use the City’s model energy efficiency code to support the use of smart-grid and Energy Star appliances in new development. Final architectural building design has not been completed by which to evaluate the above measures of consistency, and, these measures are voluntary. A finding of consistency can therefore not be made at this time. However, use of energy efficient appliances is recommended for use in this project and is expected to be sufficient to meet the energy reduction goal. In meeting the goal, the project would be considered to be consistent with GHG Plans, Programs and Policies with a less-than-significant GHG emissions impact. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 43 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply VIII. 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? 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 environ- ment? 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 public or the environment? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X 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? X 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 intermixed with wildlands? X SUBSTANTIATION: a,b &d) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or, 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; or, be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 44 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? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Implementation of the Project may create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. In addition, implementation of the Project may create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Hazardous materials may be used during the construction phase of development. Petroleum fuels and lubricants will be used to support construction equipment operations. These will be limited to the construction phase and be subject to local, state and federal regulations as they pertain to the transport and handling of these materials. This will also apply to the transport and handling of hazardous materials during the operational phase. The quantities of hazardous materials on the Project site after development will be household quantities, not large volumes, the potential for a significant release of hazardous materials due to an accident after development is considered to be very low. Project impacts are considered less than significant, as existing rules and regulations will be in place to address the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The following mitigation measure will be incorporated into the SWPPP prepared for the Project and it can reduce such a hazard to a nonsignificant level. VIII-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities will be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant released. The contami- nated waste will be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. This measure will be incorporated into the SWPPP prepared for the Project development. The following studies were performed for the proposed Project site: • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 9250 Lower Azusa Road, Temple City, California 91780, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., dated May 22, 2012 (Phase 1); • Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Former Lumber Yard, 9250 Lower Azusa Road, Temple City, California 91780, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., dated October 5, 2012 (Phase II); • Additional Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Former Lumber Yard, 9250 Lower Azusa Road, Temple City, California 91780, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., dated November 1, 2012 (Phase IIA); • Site Specific Sampling and Analysis Plan, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., dated February 28, 2013 (SSSAP); and • Site Characterization Assessment, 9250 Lower Azusa Road and 4303 Temple City Boulevard, Temple City, California, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., dated July 28, 2013 (SCA). The Phase I concluded: • No underground storage tanks (USTs) or aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) other than three air pressure tanks, which do not represent an environmental concern to the Site. The former USTs do not represent an environmental concern to the Property and no further investigation regarding this issue was necessary. The following in an excerpt from the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works letter, Hazardous Materials Underground Storage Closure Certification Closure Application No. 5156B Facility Located at 9250 East Lower Azusa Road, Temple City (3T), dated February 7, 2013: “We reviewed the final closure report dated April 26, 1991, required as a part of the subject closure permit. Based on the information submitted, we find that all closure requirements have been Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 45 completed. With the provision that the information provided to this agency was accurate an d representative of existing conditions, it is our position that no further action is required at this time.” • The California Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), Well Investigation Program (WIP) database lists sites that are under investigation as potential responsible parties for regional groundwater contamination within the San Gabriel Valley. No further investigation was recommended regarding this issue, and no mitigation measures were deemed necessary in regard to the regional groundwater contamination, as part of the planned residential development. • Under the CHMIRS database, the Site is reported to have a release of approximately 30-gallons of mineral oil that could have potentially contained PCBs. It was recommended that a file review be performed at the LACFP to evaluate the location of the release and verify whether the release was investigated and addressed or whether further assessment or remediation is necessary. • An environmental concern is that wood treatment (including with the hazardous substance known as creosote) may have occurred on the property in these areas of the Site. Therefore, it was recommended a Phase II subsurface investigation be performed to sample soil for the presence of chemicals typically used during lumber-related uses, including creosote. • In 1990, CRWQCB personnel observed a discharge of waste water from steam cleaning of forklifts to an unpaved area of the Site along the southwestern property boundary. The soil discharge area has never been assessed. Due to the potential for cleaning operations to have included the use of hazardous substances, it was recommended that an exploratory boring in that vicinity to evaluate whether hazardous substances are present above regulatory thresholds as a result of forklift cleaning operations. • Due to the proximity of the property to the southern Site boundary and because this site reportedly still contains VOC concentrations in soil, it was recommended that soil vapor samples be collected along the southeast Site boundary nearest to this former facility to evaluate if any impact exists which might affect the residential development of this property. • Aerial photographs indicate that the Southern Pacific Railroad has bordered the southern Site boundary since at least 1928 and that a rail spur branched off into the southeast portion of the Site. It is recommended that surface soils be sampled along the southern boundary and where the former rail spur entered the Site to evaluate whether metals are present above regulatory thresholds. The spur is still present and it is recommended to be removed prior to site development. • Plastic buckets were observed in one of the large, metal-framed structures labeled as containing hydraulic oil and old oil filters. Heavy staining was observed near the buckets and used oil filters. Therefore, it was recommended that there be an exploratory soil boring in the vicinity of this heavy staining. • Three air pressure tanks were observed at the Site with visible staining near their respective bases. Old equipment associated with the lumber industry (primarily saws) was observed on-site inside one of the large, metal framed structures and outside the other metal-framed structure. Some leaking was observed near and around the base of these machines. It was recommended that there be exploratory soil borings in the vicinity of the equipment with observed leaks and staining. • In addition, the following non-ASTM environmental issues associated with the Site: • Given the age of the existing structure on the Site (constructed in the 1960s), lead-based paint (“LBP") is considered likely to have been used. It was recommended that prior to any Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 46 renovations that would result in disturbance of suspect material, an LBP survey be completed to ensure proper removal and disposal. In addition, prior to any activities with the potential to disturb the materials, all identified LBP shall be removed in accordance with all applicable laws. • Given the age of the existing structure on the Site (constructed in the 1960s), asbestos containing materials (“ACMs") are considered likely to have been used. It was recommended that prior to any renovations that would result in disturbance of suspect material, a comprehensive pre- demolition ACM survey should be completed in accordance with the sampling criteria of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (“AHERA”), and that a certified asbestos abatement contractor be retained to remove ACM in accordance with all applicable laws. • Lastly, a plugged and abandoned well (American Petrofina Explor. Co “El Monte” 1) is located approximately 275 feet east/southeast of the proposed Project site. Due to distance, it was considered unlikely that oil or oil related wells represent an environmental concern to the proposed Project site. However, based on previous discussions with DOGGR, on occasion the oil well locations plotted on these maps have been found to be incorrectly plotted by as much as 300 feet from their actual location. Although such a situation is unlikely, it was recommended that the location of record be requested from the DOGGR for further confirmation that the well is not located within the proposed Project site boundaries. The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to address impacts from lead based paint or asbestos: VIII-2 The developer shall notify the selected construction contractor that the structures may contain asbestos or lead paint and testing shall be completed prior to demolition. If asbestos or lead paint is encountered, the construction contractor shall remove these materials to accepted background concen- trations from all locations where such materials are encountered, and the material shall be handled in accordance with existing laws and regulations in place at the time of implementation. All contaminated material shall be disposed of at an appropriately licensed facility (such as a landfill authorized to handle the contaminated waste) and transported in accordance with regula- tions in place at the time of removal. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts from lead based paint or asbestos will be reduced to a less than significant level. The Phase II concluded: Soil Sample Results • Soil samples collected for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) analysis reported maximum concentration of 240 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) (TPH as diesel) at soil sample location SB-4 (See Figure 2 of the Phase II). No TPH in the gasoline or oil ranges was detected above detection limits at any of the sampling locations analyzed for these compounds. No SVOCs or VOCs were detected above detection limits at any of the sampling locations for these compounds. Based on the presence of TPH as diesel as SB-4, there appears to be residual soil impacts associated with historical discharges. Therefore, it was recommended that limited removal of soil in the area of SB-4 be performed. • Soil samples collected and analyzed for metals showed metals levels in soil at concentrations consistent with background levels for all areas of the Site – except at boring locations SB-1 and SB-3 (See Figure 2 of the Phase II). At SB-1, for arsenic (76.4 mg/kg) and lead (185 mg/kg), and Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 47 at SB-3, for lead (149 mg/kg), metals were reported at concentrations above typical background levels of 12.0 mg/kg for arsenic and 3.0 to 5.0 mg/kg for lead. SB-1 and SB-3 are located along the railroad tracks in an area where the potential historical use of herbicides may have occurred, which could be the source of these metals concentrations. The reported levels of arsenic in all samples are above concentrations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSL) (USEPA RSL, May 2012) for soils for residential use, at 0.39 mg/kg. Lead was detected below the RSL set at 400 mg/kg. At SB-1, the lateral and vertical extent of the elevated arsenic concentrations, at levels above RSLs, has not yet been defined. It is recommended that the soil in this area be excavated from the proposed Project site and disposed of off-site. Prior to that removal, additional soil samples should be collected to define the anticipated volume for removal. Based on the limited soil sampling collected to date, however, it appears that the volume of removal should not be larger than several hundred cubic yards. • In regard to the transformers, no TPH was detected at the transformer locations. Therefore, neither transformers nor PCBs represent a recognized environmental condition, and no further investigation regarding this issue is necessary. Soil Vapor Samples • A regional groundwater plume is known to exist in the area of Peck Road and Real. Environmental investigations have been ongoing since 1979 when VOCs in groundwater were first discovered. It is believed that there are several contributors of this regional contamination and the EPA is still in the process of naming responsible parties. The San Gabriel Valley (Area 1) groundwater plume underlies the proposed Project site and spans an area of 4 miles in length and 1.5 miles in width. The groundwater within the area of the proposed Project site is reportedly contaminated with tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and carbon tetrachloride (CTC) from industrial activities involving degreasing, metal cleaning, or other solvent related activities. • According to the NPL database, depth to groundwater is greater than 100 feet bgs below the proposed Project site. According to the report, certain municipal wells within the plume reported PCE, TCE, and CTC concentrations at levels that those wells had to be put out of commission. Based on records from the CRWQCB, the proposed Project site has not been named as a contributing party to the regional contamination. In addition, a soil vapor survey was conducted at the proposed Project site, by the U.S. EPA, in March 1998, during the WIP investigation. The results of that investigation reported no contaminant concentrations above laboratory reporting limits. The apparent absence of soil vapor detections was the basis for removing this proposed Project site from the potential responsible party (PRP) listing for the superfund action in the area. • To verify the U.S. EPA soil survey results, a collection of soil vapor data at the up-gradient portion of the Site, at SG-1 and SG-2 (See Figure 2 of the Phase II). Benzene, 2-butanone, chloroform, ethylbenzene, 4-ethyltoulene, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, total xylenes, tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene were reported above laboratory detection limits in the two soil vapor samples collected at those locations. In both of these samples (SG1-5 and SG2-5), benzene (2.8 and 15 μg/m3), chloroform (2.7 and 2.5 μg/m3), ethylbenzene (14 and 23 μg/m3), PCE (1300 and 91 μg/m3) and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (19 and 20 μg/m3) were reported above the USEPA RSLs for each analyte. • The data indicated that soil vapor contamination is present below the eastern portion of the proposed Project site, near known sources of impact at the adjacent property. The extent of the elevated contamination in soil vapor has not been defined on a Site-wide basis. The 1998 survey did not detect soil vapor impact beneath the proposed Project site - but it should be noted that the laboratory test procedures have improved in the past 14 years, thereby increasing sensitivity of Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 48 the analysis. The data indicates a concern to residential development of the proposed Project site due to the risk of vapor intrusion. Further assessment was recommended to establish the extent and concentrations of soil vapor at levels that may require protection (vapor barriers) from vapor intrusion. The available information, however, indicates that the source of the soil vapor impact is from an off-site source, most likely from an adjacent property issue, or potentially – but less likely – from the underlying known groundwater impacts. The Phase IIA concluded: Soil Vapor-Related Concerns • The data indicates a potential concern to residential development of the proposed Project site due to the risk of vapor intrusion as the result of off-gassing of the residual contaminant concentrations. The data collected to date indicates that soil vapor contamination is present below the eastern portion of the Site, and that the impact appears to extend a distance of less than 200 feet to the west and 100 feet to the south of boring SG-1/SG-1A (see Figure 2 of the Phase IIA). The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to address impacts associated with soil vapor- related concerns: VIII-3 Vapor mitigation, in the form of vapor barriers, is recommended below four of the proposed units planned for the eastern portion of the Site. If changes are made to the proposed layout of the Site that alters the density of proposed structures in this area, it is recommended that further evaluation for vapor mitigation would be necessary for any additional structures. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts from soil vapor-related concerns will be reduced to a less than significant level. 4303 Temple City Boulevard • The source of PCE impact to soil vapor is unknown, but is suspected to be a result of the extensive history of industrial practices in the proposed Project site vicinity. One potential source property includes a property addressed as 4303 Temple City Boulevard. This 4303 Temple City Boulevard address is listed in the Environmental Data Resources (EDR) report as being part of the San Gabriel Valley (Area 1) Well Investigation Program (WIP) and is also listed as being an open case under the Spills, Leaks, Investigation and Cleanup (SLIC) program managed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). The 4303 Temple City Boulevard address is mapped in the EDR report as being greater than 1/8 mile from the Site and on the CRWQCB’s Geotracker website (Global ID# SL603798586) as being greater than 1 mile north of the proposed Project site. • In an attempt to confirm an exact location of this property, the 4303 Temple City Boulevard address was researched on the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Property Assessment System (http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/mapping/viewer.asp) website. That search mapped the 4303 Temple City Boulevard as being the boundary of the proposed Project site – even though no portion of the proposed Project site borders Temple City Boulevard. A previous file review for the known property address of 9250 Lower Azusa Road indicated that the proposed Project site was not found to be a contributor to VOC contamination in the San Gabriel Valley (Area 1) groundwater plume by the U.S. EPA. • However, based on the new information obtained and on the uncertainty of the facility location, there is concern that the proposed Project site may have had an alternate address of 4303 Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 49 Temple City Boulevard, in which case there may be an active SLIC case open for the proposed Project site and it may still be an active site in the WIP. • It should be noted that these findings regarding 4303 Temple City Boulevard do not change the conclusions of the additional soil vapor assessment discussed above. However, it was recommended that a file review be performed for 4303 Temple City Boulevard to evaluate whether this address is related to the proposed Project site, whether the address pertains to the adjacent property to the east that is bordered by Temple City Boulevard, and – in any event – the extent of potential environmental concerns related to 4303 Temple City Boulevard, in the event further information is revealed about previously-unidentified potential risks to the Site. A file review request for 4303 Temple City Boulevard was submitted to the CRWQCB. The SSSAP concluded: • A site-specific sampling and analysis plan (SAP) was designed to describe the additional site characterization requested by the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Site Mitigation Unit (SMU) in a correspondence letter dated February 19, 2013. • The referenced correspondence letter from the SMU states that the Site has not been fully characterized regarding the nature and extent of potential hazardous waste releases. The Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) was prepared in accordance with the above-referenced letter and specifically addressed information requests made by the SMU in the above reference correspondence letter. The specific scope of work outlined in this document is based upon the elements discussed in a meeting on February 25, 2013. • It was believed that this SAP satisfies SMU’s requirements and will provide sufficient site characterization as required. The intent was to obtain closure of the site for future residential development. The SCA concluded: The following issues were identified that would require remediation or mitigation prior to Site redevelopment for residential use: Arsenic and Lead in Soil • Isolated occurrences of elevated arsenic and lead were detected in soils adjacent to the neighboring railroad easement, as shown on Figure 3 of the SCA, and identified as Areas 1 through 3. • Arsenic was detected above the typical background concentration of approximately 12 mg/kg at Areas 1 and 2, with maximum concentrations reaching 48.5 mg/kg. Lead was detected above the residential CHHSL of 80 mg/kg in Areas 1, 2, and 3 with maximum concentrations reaching 161 mg/kg. Analytical results from step out borings and deeper soil sampling at Areas 1 through 3 indicated that elevated arsenic and lead appear to be limited laterally to within 15 feet of the southern proposed Project site boundary to varying depths ranging from approximately 1 foot bgs in Area 3 to 5 feet in portions of Area 1. • Additionally, the Phase II, discussed above, identified an area of elevated lead (149 mg/kg) in shallow soil at previous boring SB-3. Analytical result of a deeper sample collected at 2 feet bgs from SB-3 indicate that elevate lead in this area is limited to approximately 1.5 feet bgs. This area is identified on Figure 3 of the SCA as Area 4. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 50 • The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to address impacts from arsenic and lead in the soil: VIII-4 The developer shall notify the selected construction contractor that a potential exists to encounter arsenic and lead impacted soils at the site. The contractor shall be prepared to detect, excavate, document and dispose of contaminated materials in compliance with applicable laws and regulations at the time of construction if contaminated soils are encountered. The arsenic and lead impacted soils from Areas 1 through 4 be excavated and disposed of at an offsite facility under oversight from the SMU in order to receive regulatory closure of this issue. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, potential impacts from arsenic and lead impacted soils will be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. Soil Vapor-Related Issues • The analytical results of soil gas sampling indicate that PCE concentrations are present in the eastern end of the proposed Project site at levels slightly above the residential CHHSL for PCE of 0.47 ug/L. Therefore, a potential concern exists with regard to the residential development of the Site due to potential vapor intrusion from off-gassing of the residual contaminant concentrations. Overall, VOC concentrations in soil gas at eastern end of the Site appear to decrease with distance away from the adjacent 4301 Temple City Boulevard property, a former gazebo manufacturer where PCE contamination is known to be present. The PCE concentrations also appear higher in this area in the northern portion of the Site closer to the flood control channel, suggesting preferential flow possibly along the wall of the flood channel. • The data collected during this investigation and past investigations suggests that that the PCE contamination in soil gas is sourced off site on the adjacent property to the east, and that the impact appears to extend a distance of less than 400 feet to the west and 100 feet to the south of the flood channel. Given that the PCE contamination detected in soil gas at the east end of the proposed Project site is slightly above the residential CHHSL, and because these concentrations appear to be sourced from an offsite release, vapor mitigation in the form of vapor barriers and passive venting systems are recommended as an appropriate and conservative course of action for approximately fourteen affected buildings. Figure 5 of the SCA shows the east end of the proposed Project site in large scale along with the affected units with proposed vapor mitigation systems. • In addition, the previous investigations performed on-site identified one additional area of is an area with petroleum hydrocarbon (oil range) impact from a former wastewater discharge area. • A recent review of the file for the nearby oil well confirmed that the well is located off site on the Clayton Industries property to the south. Additionally, no methane was detected in any of the vapor probes tested during the assessment performed under the SMU’s direction. Mitigation Measure VIII-3, above, was added to address impacts associated with soil vapor-related concerns. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts from soil vapor-related concerns will be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporat ed – The Project may emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of two Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 51 existing schools (Encinita Elementary School and Rosemead High School), or proposed school. As stated immediately above, hazardous materials may be used during the construction phase of development. These will be limited to the construction phase and be subject to local, state and federal regulations as they pertain to the transport and handling of these materials. This will also apply to the transport and handling of hazardous materials during the operational phase. The quantities of hazardous materials on the Project site after development will be household quantities, not large volumes, the potential for a significant release of hazardous materials due to an accident after development is considered to be very low. Project impacts are considered less than significant, as existing rules and regulations will be in place to address the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Mitigation measure VIII-1, above, will be incorporated into the SWPPP prepared for the Project; thereby, reducing potential hazards to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. e&f) 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; or, 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? No Impact – The Project site is 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 or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, that result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The El Monte Airport, a public airport, is located approximately 1.9 miles to the east/southeast of the Project site. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. The structures proposed by the Project are 30 feet high or lower and will be designed to minimize glare from shiny surfaces or night-time security lighting. No impacts to aircraft or air operations will result. This Project will not expose people or property to any new or greater potential adverse effects associated with air operations or aircraft. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The Project is located within an area that is accessible to the public. Public roads exist adjacent to the Project site. No known emergency response or evacuation plans or routes are known to exist in the vicinity of the Project and no such plans will be affected by this Project. Refer to the Transportation/Traffic Section of this document, Section XV. Mitigation to address any potential traffic disruption and emergency access issues are included in this section. Impacts are reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation incorporated. No additional mitigation is required. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact – Implementation of the Project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. The Project site is located in an urbanized area with no Wildlands in the Project site vicinity. Due to this condition, there is no potential for wildland fires to occur at the Project site. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 52 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: 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)? X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? X 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 onsite or offsite? X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 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 Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 53 SUBSTANTIATION: a&f) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; or, otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – This Project has the potential for discharge of surface runoff into the regional drainage system, which eventually flows into drainage systems in the San Gabriel and Los Angeles River Watersheds. The proposed Project will prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for control of pollutants during construction and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for control of pollutants during occupancy of the Project site. The City and County have adopted a set of Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to control discharges of pollution during construction and occupancy that could cause a significant adverse impact to surface water quality. The SWPPP and WQMP address the hydrologic conditions of concern by maintaining pre-development flows once the Specific Plan is developed and treatment of the surface runoff from the site before discharge to Eaton Wash. This will be accomplished by reducing, to the extent feasible, the amount of impervious surface and through on-site retention. The WQMP also identifies BMPs to be utilized to reduce potential Project pollutants (e.g. sediment/turbidity, nutrients, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, bacteria and viruses, oil and grease, pesticides, organic compounds, and metals). Finally, prior to site development, the City will require the submittal and approval of the Final Water Quality Management Plan. With the implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan, no significant adverse impacts to water quality are expected to occur and no additional mitigation is required. IX-1 Prior to the approval of the grading permit, the City shall review and approve the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan as required by the program requirements in effect at the time grading is proposed. 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)? Less Than Significant Impact – No potential exists to directly intercept the groundwater table during development of this Project. The Project will be supplied water by the California American Water Co. (CAW) that utilizes both groundwater and imported water supplies to ensure adequate water is available for consumers. Imported water is utilized to ensure that significant overdraft of local ground water supplies does not occur. CAW identifies sufficient water resources to meet water demand within its service area. No adverse impacts to groundwater resources are forecast to occur from implementing the proposed Project. No mitigation is required. While the development of the Project may result in a slight reduction in the amount of recharge associated with natural flows, this reduction is expected to be off-set/replaced by increased infiltration from irrigated landscaped areas that will be established on the developed portions of the site. There are presently no irrigated areas on the Project site though limited landscape irrigation did historically occur. The development of the Project will not interrupt the existing flow of groundwater under the Project site. Given the depth to groundwater, and the amount of impervious surface, there is some potential to impact the quality of the shallow groundwater under the site. Accidental spills or releases occasionally occur during the grading and construction of the Project. However, the implementation of, and compliance with, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan requirements identified above in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of this Initial Study are used to address this source. Further, the requirements for a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) address the need to control water quality to prevent the proposed Project from impacting surface water quality which will reduce the potential for the Project to degrade ground water quality downstream. With Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 54 the implementation of the mitigation measure in this Section and the measure in Section VIII, no significant impacts are anticipated. c-e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite; or, 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 onsite or offsite; or, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact – Project drainage design will insure that increases in surface runoff from the site as a result of increased impervious surface will be reduced to a nonsignificant level of flow before leaving the Project site. Storm flows will be controlled to a level that does not cause any significant increases in runoff and flood hazards downstream. The onsite facilities will control the increased runoff in a manner consistent with flood control requirements. No potential for significant adverse impacts due to the increased volume of flows is forecast to occur and no mitigation is required. The Project will result in minor changes in currents, course and direction of water movements. Please refer to the detailed discussion of proposed drainage improvements discussed under item (a) of this section. The overall natural drainage system of the Project area will remain the same as flows from the Project site will be delivered to Eaton Wash. No significant impacts are expected and no mitigation is required. Lastly, as discussed in IX.a, and IX.b above, the Project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts are considered less than significant. 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? No Impact – The Project is not located 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. Therefore, implementation of the Project will not place any structures within a 100 year floodplain or expose future facilities to substantial flood hazards. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact – The Project is not located within a 100-year floodplain. Therefore, implementation of the Project will not place any structures within a 100 year floodplain or expose future facilities to substantial flood hazards. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. 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? No Impact – The Santa Fe Dam and Reservoir is on the San Gabriel River, northeast of the proposed Project would be the primary major threats from dams or reservoirs is flood inundation in the rare case of structural failure or breach. In the unlikely event of a dam breach or failure, waters would not reach the proposed Project site. Based on this information, the proposed will not 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. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 55 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact – The Project site is located about 50 miles from the ocean and is not situated near a large water body that has the potential to generate a tsunami or seiche. No hills exist around or near the site that could result in the generation of substantial mudflow. No impact from such hazards can be identified and no mitigation is required. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 56 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: 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 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X SUBSTANTIATION: a) Physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact – Implementation of the Project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. As stated in the Project Description, the following uses, which are consistent and compatible with adjacent existing residential uses currently located in the areas adjacent to the Project: • North: Lower Azusa Road, Eaton Wash, industrial and residential • South: Railroad lines/ROW, single-family, vacant • East: Storage lot, industrial • West: Industrial, Railroad lines/right-of-way, residential, Encinita Elementary School, Rosemead High School, Rosemead Park The proposed Project is located in an area of the City with a wide range of uses. The Project site is a discrete parcel that will support the proposed residential uses in a manner comparable to adjacent uses to the north, south and west. This Project site does not have any potential to physically divide any existing community and can be implemented to blend in with this mixed use portion of the City. Any impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. 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? Less Than Significant Impact – Project File No. 130000091: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map No. 72407, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review and a Development Agreement would change the General Plan and Zoning designations on the subject property from Industrial and Heavy Manufacturing, respectively, to Infill Community (IC) Overlay Zoning District, to allow for a residential development and open space on the site. Tentative Tract Map No. 72407 proposes to implement a 74 unit single-family attached and detached residential project with associated on-site recreational amenities (three pocket parks) on two (2) parcels totaling approximately 10.8 acres. With the approval of the General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review will be made consistent with the General Plan and site zoning. Any impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 57 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact – The proposed Project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Please reference the analysis contained in Sectio n IV (Biological Resources). There are no such plans within the City; therefore, no such impacts can occur. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 58 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XI. 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 SUBSTANTIATION: a&b) 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; or, 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? No Impact – Due to existing site development (and prior site disturbances) and the existing development surrounding the Project site, mining of aggregate or other materials is impractical. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project will 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; or 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. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 59 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X SUBSTANTIATION: The following information is abstracted from a noise technical study titled “Noise Impact Analysis 9250 Lower Azusa Road, Temple City, California.” This study was prepared by Giroux & Associates and a copy of this study is provided as Appendix 4 to this document. Much of the information presented below is abstracted from this study to provide the reviewer with sufficient information to understand the potential noise impacts and constraints that affect the proposed project. Background Defining Noise and Noise Standards Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally considered to be unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound pressure levels. Although decibels are most commonly associated with sound, "dB" is a generic descriptor that is equal to ten times the logarithmic ratio of any Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 60 physical parameter versus some reference quantity. For sound, the reference level is the faintest sound detectable by a young person with good auditory acuity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire auditory spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions by weighting sounds within the range of maximum human sensitivity more heavily in a process called “A-weighting,” written as dB(A). Any further reference in this discussion to decibels written as "dB" should be understood to be A-weighted. Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called LEQ), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound pressure level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. Finally, because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Ldn (day-night) or the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL metric has gradually replaced the Ldn factor, but the two descriptors are essentially identical. CNEL-based standards are generally applied to transportation-related sources because local jurisdictions are pre-empted from exercising direct noise control over vehicles on public streets, aircraft, trains, etc. The City of Temple City therefore regulates the traffic noise exposure of the receiving property through land use controls. Noise/land use compatibility standards for various classes of land uses are generally expressed in the Noise Element of the General Plan to insure that noise exposure is considered in any development decisions. Temple City has guidelines for noise exposure standards for various land uses as shown in Table XII-1. For residential uses such as the proposed project, the City recommends an exterior noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL for outdoor recreational environments such as private yards, patios or balconies. Table XII-1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS TEMPLE CITY GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT Land Use CNEL (dBA) Categories Uses Interior1 Exterior2 Residential Single & multi-family, duplex Mobile homes 654 Commercial Hotel, motel & transient housing 45 65(5) Commercial retail, bank, restaurant 55 --- Office bldg., R&D, professional offices 50 --- Amphitheater, concert hall, auditorium 45 --- Gymnasium (Multipurpose) 50 --- Sports Club 55 --- Manufacturing, warehousing, utilities 65 --- Movie Theaters 45 --- Institutional/Public Hospital, school classroom/playgrounds 45 65 Church, library 45 --- Open Space Parks --- 65 Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 61 Land Use CNEL (dBA) Categories Uses Interior1 Exterior2 Notes: 1 - Indoor environment excluding bathrooms, kitchens, closets and corridors 2 - Outdoor environment limited to: Private yard of single-family dwellings Multi-family private patios or balconies accessed from within dwelling Mobile home parks Park picnic areas School playgrounds Hospital patios 3 - Noise level with closed windows. Mechanical ventilation to be provided as per code 4 - Exterior noise levels should be such that interior levels do no exceed 45 dBA CNEL 5 –Except those areas affected by aircraft noise An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR, Title 24, Part 6, Section T25-28) for multiple-family dwellings and hotel and motel rooms. In 1988, the State Building Standards Commission expanded that standard to include all habitable rooms in residential use, including single-family dwelling units. Therefore, for this project an exterior noise level of 65 dB CNEL in any usable outdoor recreational area and interior noise level of 45 dB in any habitable indoor space are considered to be the appropriate compatibility standards. For “stationary” noise sources such as mechanical equipment (pool pumps, air conditioners, etc.), or noise from manufacturing uses, the City does have legal authority to establish noise performance standards designed to not adversely impact adjoining residential uses. These standards are typically articulated in the jurisdictional Municipal Code. These standards recognize the varying noise sensitivity of both transmitting and receiving land uses. The property line noise performance standards are normally structured according to land use and time-of-day. The noise standards provided in Section 9281 of the Temple City Municipal Code are shown in Table XII-2. Table XII-2 NOISE STANDARDS Zone 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM Residential 55 dBA 45 dBA Commercial 65 dBA 55 dBA Industrial 75 dBA 75 dBA Per Section 9280 of the City’s Municipal Code, noise associated with construction activities is exempt from 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The City often times includes a condition of approval stating that no construction is permitted on Sundays. Baseline Noise Level Noise measurements were made in order to document existing baseline levels in the area, particularly train noise along the adjacent rail line to serve as a basis to determine noise exposure from ambient noise activities upon the proposed project. Long term (24-hour) noise measurements were conducted on Tuesday, October 22, to Wednesday, October 23, 2013, at three on-site locations. Refer to Appendix 4 for an aerial photo that shows the noise sampling locations. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 62 Long-term noise measurement locations were selected to document the daily trend in noise levels generated by Lower Azusa Road traffic but primarily from the adjacent rail line. Train horn noise was observed to be audible at the project site; both as trains approach from the west before they reach the Encinita Avenue crossing and as trains approach from the east. The monitoring results are shown in Table XII-3. Closest to Lower Azusa Road, noise levels were the highest, presumably because of the combination of traffic from Lower Azusa Road in addition to noise from trains and train horns as they approach the crossing. When adjusted for distance, noise readings are 74 dB CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the track centerline. Meter 1 is located approximately 100 feet from the Lower Azusa Road centerline while the nearest project residence is planned to have a 90 foot setback. Therefore, it is likely that actual noise at the westernmost site residences will be about equal to the measured 74 dB CNEL. Further east, observed CNELs at Meters 2 and 3, showed noise levels ranging from 70-73 dB when adjusted for a 50 foot separation distance. Given that noise levels may vary by location due to use of horns and distance separation to Lower Azusa Road, the above values are considered very consistent and are considered to provide an accurate characterization of the existing acoustic baseline. From this data we may infer that baseline noise levels are high in proximity to the railroad tracks and that mitigation will be necessary to meet the Temple City recommended noise compatibility guidelines. Table XII-3 NOISE MEASUREMENTS EXISTING HOURLY LEQ’S (dB) Time Interval Leqs Meter 1 Leqs Meter 2 Leqs Meter 3 12:00-13:00 54 45 50 13:00-14:00 69 72 76 14:00-15:00 70 67 74 15:00-16:00 54 43 47 16:00-17:00 55 43 46 17:00-18:00 56 46 51 18:00-19:00 69 75 73 19:00-20:00 55 49 62 20:00-21:00 55 48 58 21:00-22:00 57 44 46 22:00-23:00 52 45 49 23:00-24:00 48 41 46 0:00-1:00 68 69 75 1:00-2:00 61 65 70 2:00-3:00 69 71 73 3:00-4:00 68 71 73 4:00-5:00 43 34 43 5:00:6:00 64 58 59 6:00-7:00 54 40 46 7:00-8:00 68 69 78 Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 63 Time Interval Leqs Meter 1 Leqs Meter 2 Leqs Meter 3 8:00-9:00 57 47 55 9:00-10:00 55 69 78 10:00-11:00 55 43 46 11:00-12:00 61 44 49 RESULTANT 24-HOUR CNEL (dB) Measurement Parameter Meter 1 (dB CNEL) Meter 2 (dB CNEL) Meter 3 (dB CNEL) At noise monitor location 71 73 76 Adjusted for distance (25 feet from track centerline) 77 73 76 Adjusted for distance (50 feet from track centerline) 74 70 73 Currently a rail line runs parallel to the site along the entire southern perimeter. There are approximately 14 daily freight trains and on average, one passenger train a day. The passenger train travels the Amtrak Sunset Limited route. Possible future rail growth is unknown. It is assumed therefore, for the purposes of this analysis that future noise levels due to railroad operations will increase only slightly from current operations. A growth factor of 4 additional freight trains per day was assumed. Because of the logarithmic relationship between noise levels and traffic volumes, this will increase noise by only +1 dB. Therefore, worst case noise impacts due to rail operations and street traffic are assumed to be approximately 75 dB CNEL at the western site perimeter and 74 dB CNEL further east. Although these noise levels exceed the recommended compatibility recommendations, the guidelines are strictly advisory goals, and compliance is discretionary in special circumstances. Standard of Significance Noise impacts are considered significant if they expose persons to levels in excess of standards established in local general plans or noise ordinances. The exterior noise standard for the City of Temple City for residential uses is 65 dBA CNEL in usable outdoor space such as backyards, decks, patios, etc. and 45 dB CNEL interior. Since the project does not have recreational space for individual units, the interior threshold was given primary consideration. If required, attenuation through setback, structural mitigation and project perimeter barriers is anticipated to be used to reduce transportation noise to the 45 dBA CNEL interior goal. However, an inability to achieve this goal through the application of reasonably available mitigation measures would be considered a significant impact. Impacts may also be significant if they create either a substantial permanent or temporary increase. However, passive use of the project site for 74 residential units is not expected to create a substantial noise impact for the surrounding community. 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? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Based on the background baseline noise levels summarized above, the project site will be exposed to noise levels in excess of standards established by the City of Temple City for the proposed residential uses at the site. In each of the following sections more detailed information regarding this potentially significant impact is provided along with mitigation measures that can reduce the noise impacts to a less than significant level. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 64 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction Activity Vibration Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated – Typical background vibration levels in residential areas are usually 50 VdB or lower, below the threshold of human perception. Perceptible vibration levels inside residences are typically attributed to the operation of heating and air conditioning systems, door slams or street traffic. Construction activities and street traffic are some of the most common external sources of vibration that can be perceptible inside residences. Construction activities generate ground-borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement. The effects of ground-borne vibration include discernable movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. Vibration related problems generally occur due to resonances in the structural components of a building because structures amplify groundborne vibration. Within the “soft” sedimentary surfaces of much of southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped out. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors (FTA 2006). Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures. Because vibration is typically not an issue, very few jurisdictions have adopted vibration significance thresholds. Vibration thresholds have been adopted for major public works construction projects, but these relate mostly to structural protection (cracking foundations or stucco) rather than to human annoyance. Vibration is most commonly expressed in terms of the root mean square (RMS) velocity of a vibrating object. RMS velocities are expressed in units of vibration decibels. The range of vibration decibels (VdB) is as follows: 65 VdB - threshold of human perception 72 VdB - annoyance due to frequent events 80 VdB - annoyance due to infrequent events 94-98 VdB - minor cosmetic damage To determine potential impacts of the project’s construction activities, estimates of vibration levels induced by the construction equipment at various distances are presented below: Approximate Vibration Levels (VdB)* Equipment 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet 120 feet 200 feet Large Bulldozer 87 81 75 73 69 Loaded Truck 86 80 74 72 68 Jackhammer 79 73 67 65 61 Small Bulldozer 58 52 46 44 40 * (FTA Transit Noise & Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 2006) The on-site construction equipment that will create the maximum potential vibration is a large bulldozer. The stated vibration source level in the FTA Handbook for such equipment is 81 VdB at 50 feet from the source. With typical vibration energy spreading loss, the annoyance threshold of 80 VdB is met at 56 feet. The closest project residence is 120 feet from the construction activity. At this distance bulldozer vibration potential is mitigated to 73 VdB. Construction activity vibration impacts are judged as less-than- significant. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 65 Rail Vibration Less Than Significant Impact - Railroads generate ground-borne vibration that may be perceptible at adjacent residences. Construction of residential units in close proximity to railroad tracks can cause rattling windows and throbbing floors. At stronger vibration levels, cosmetic damage can occur in fragile buildings. Vibration is most commonly expressed in terms of the root mean square (RMS) velocity of a vibrating object. Train vibration depends upon a variety of factors. The weight of the train, the travel speed, the condition of the track and the character of the subsoil all affect the observed vibration level. The USDOT Guideline called “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (May, 2006) suggests a significance threshold of 80 VdB for train vibrations if there are fewer than 70 train movements per day. There are currently approximately 14 daily trains passing by the project site and this is not expected to increase substantially in the future. As shown in Figure XII-1, use of DOT guidelines predicts vibration levels of 85 VdB at 50 feet from the track for freight trains traveling at 50 mph. The site buildings are setback approximately 50 feet from the train tracks. Vibration levels from heavy rail systems depend upon train travel speed. Freight trains are restricted to a 30 mph speed limit in areas of at-grade crossings. The RMS vibration level at 30 mph is approximately 3 VdB less than at 50 mph. A reference vibration level of 82 VdB has therefore been assumed for the building footprints of the proposed project. Vibration generally reduces as it propagates though a building. In addition large masonry buildings with spread footings have a low response to ground vibration. The following coupling losses are generally observed in the indicated types of construction per USDOT Guidelines: Wood Frame -5 VdB 1-2 Story Commercial -7 VdB 3-4 Story Masonry -10 VdB Large Masonry on Piles -10 VdB Large Masonry on Spread Footings -13 VdB For this project a -7 dB coupling loss “credit” was taken per building since the proposed buildings are at two stories high. Freight train vibration levels of 82 VdB at 50 feet from the track centerline for a locomotive-powered freight train traveling at 30 mph would exceed the VdB significance threshold without the effects of coupling losses. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 66 FIGURE XII-1 Generalize Ground Surface Vibration Curves These vibration estimates are at slab level. The proposed upstairs residential uses will not experience the full vibration level that is observed at slab level. Floor/ceiling assemblies and floor coverings (especially carpet) will absorb a portion of the vibration energy. Vibration reduction “credit” for hard floor surfaces (tile, light weight concrete, etc.) is -2 VdB at ground levels and increases by an additional -2 dB upstairs. Measurements of impact isolation show that carpets and pads reduce vibration by more than 10 VdB. Counteracting absorption effects, the USDOT guidelines suggest a +6 VdB factor be included to account for amplification due to resonance of floors, walls and ceilings. Table XII-4 summarizes the appropriate credits and losses, and shows that vibration levels experienced by a person standing indoors will be marginally below the significance threshold of 80 VdB on hard surfaces, and well below the threshold on carpeted floors. Vibration annoyance impacts are considered less-than-significant. Structural damage to stucco or similar materials requires vibration levels close to 100 VdB. There are no project components that would experience such levels due to train operations. Assuming all units facing the railroad tracks will be equipped with dual-paned windows with upgraded seals for noise control, these more robust windows will have little tendency to rattle. Vibration effects within residential units passing through floors or windows will be less-than-significant. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 67 Table XII-4 INTERIOR VIBRATION LEVELS (VdB) (at 50 feet to track centerline) 1st Story Hard Floor 1stStory Carpet & Pad 2nd Story Hard Floor 2nd Story Carpet & Pad Max. Unmitigated Vibration 82 82 82 82 Coupling Losses -7 -7 -7 -7 Building Resonance +6 +6 +6 +6 Floor-to-Floor Absorption 0 0 -2 -2 Floor Covering -2 -10 -2 -10 Net Vibration 79 71 77 69 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Existing measured railroad noise from freight hauling and passenger use is estimated to create a maximum noise level of 73-74 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the track centerline. This level may increase in response to anticipated growth of rail service. The level of future rail activity growth is unknown, however future train noise may be reduced by “quiet zone” programs to reduce horn use for at-grade crossings. For purposes of analysis, projected rail growth and any possible off-set were assumed to combine for a limited increase of +1 dB from existing conditions. The future build-out train noise for any project residential use facing the railroad tracks is therefore assumed to be 75 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the track centerline. Noise exposure may be reduced by increasing the distance between the noise source and receiver. For a line source such as a moving train the reduction is generally 3 dBA per doubling of distance to the source. To provide reductions from 75 dB CNEL to 65 dB CNEL (the City of Temple City recommended exterior threshold for residential use) would require a setback from the railroad tracks of 500 feet. This possibility was deemed unfeasible. The proposed project does not anticipate any recreational space fronting the rail line. The main noise concern was considered to be the interior noise level. Acoustical design of the building façade offers a noise mitigation option to mitigate train noise for any residential unit with a line of sight to the tracks. The goal is for interior space is a noise level less than 45 dB CNEL. Therefore, acoustical upgrades capable of reducing interior noise to 45 dB CNEL in any noise sensitive space (bedrooms or living rooms) would be required. Mitigation of noise levels up to 75 dBA CNEL can typically be achieved through moderately upgraded structural features such that reductions up to 30 dB are typically attainable while still allowing for discretionary window opening. For typical wood-frame construction with stucco and gypsum board wall assemblies, the noise level reduction is as follows: Partly open windows 12 dBA Closed single-paned windows 20 dBA Closed dual-paned windows 25-30 dBA Use of dual-paned windows is required by the California Building Code for energy conservation in new residential construction. Interior noise standards would therefore be met with only the use of closed dual- paned windows at the noisiest units. It is noted that where window closure is a requirement for interior noise control, the Building Code requires provision of supplemental ventilation at a specified rate with a Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 68 specified fraction of fresh make-up air. The provision of supplemental ventilation is a standard construction practice. Noise attenuation can also be achieved through use of a wall, barrier or berm between the noise source and receiver. This barrier would only be effective if it could break the line of sight to the receiver. However, since this project consists of buildings of up to two stories, a barrier would be required to be 16- feet high to break the line of sight for both levels. Alternatively, a 12-foot wall would break the line-of-sight for ground floor levels. Mitigation Measure Discussion Therefore any one of the following menu of mitigation options would reduce interior noise to the recommended 45 dB CNEL interior compatibility level. XII-1 Sound Wall (16-foot) No additional mitigation necessary except the ability to close dual paned windows and the provision of supplemental ventilation Sound Wall (12-foot) First Story: no mitigation required Second Story: 30 dB mitigation package 1 Provision of supplemental ventilation No Wall First and Second Story: 30 dB mitigation package1 Provision of supplemental ventilation This analysis assumes that the trains will be required to continue to utilize horns (not a quiet zone) for at- grade crossings. If Temple City achieves a “quiet zone” status, a new analysis will be required. Regardless, real-estate disclosure is required for property owners informing of a rail line in the vicinity and that associated vibration and noise may be perceptible. Because the exterior tier of development will shield any interior units, acoustic upgrades are needed on only the front and side faces of the southernmost tier of residences. A supplemental acoustical analysis should be submitted in conjunction with the issuance of building permits to verify that adequate structural noise protection exists in perimeter residences adjoining the railroad tracks to meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior standard. As discussed, supplemental ventilation (most likely air conditioning with a fresh make-up air inlet) is required in any livable space where window closure to shut out transportation noise is needed to meet interior standards. 1 Provided in Table XII-5 Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 69 Table XII-5 PROTOTYPE 30 DB STRUCTURAL NOISE ATTENUATION PACKAGE Recommended Building Requirements for a Minimum Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of 30 dB 1. Compliance Compliance with the following standards shall be deemed to meet the requirements of the Compatible Use Districts in which an NLR 30 is specified. 2. General a. Brick veneer, masonry blocks or stucco exterior walls shall be constructed airtight. All joints shall be grouted or caulked airtight. b. At the penetration of exterior walls by pipes, ducts or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar. c. Window and/or through-the-wall ventilation units shall not be used. d. All sleeping spaces shall be provided with either a sound-absorbing ceiling or a carpeted floor. e. Through-the-wall/door mailboxes shall not be used. 3. Exterior Walls a. Exterior walls other than as described below shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC-44. b. Masonry walls having a surface weight of at least 40 pounds per square foot do not require a furred (stud) interior wall. At least one surface of concrete block walls shall be plastered or painted with heavy "bridging" paint. c. Stud walls shall be at least 4 inches in nominal depth and shall be finished on the outside with siding-on- sheathing, stucco, or brick veneer. (1) Interior surface of the exterior walls shall be of gypsum board or plaster at least 1/2-inch thick, installed on the studs. The gypsum board or plaster may be fastened rigidly to the studs if the exterior is brick veneer or stucco. If the exterior is siding-on-sheathing, the interior gypsum board or plaster must be fastened resiliently to the studs. (2) Continuous composition board, plywood or gypsum board sheathing shall cover the exterior side of the wall studs behind wood, or metal siding. The sheathing and facing shall weigh at least 4 pounds per square foot. (3) Sheathing panels shall be butted tightly and covered on the exterior with overlapping building paper. The top and bottom edges of the sheathing shall be sealed. (4) Insulation material at least 2-inch thick shall be installed continuously throughout the cavity spac e behind the exterior sheathing and between wall studs. Installation shall be glass fiber or mineral wool. 4. Windows a. Windows other than as described in this section shall have a laboratory sound transmission rating of at least STC-30. b. Glass of double-glazed windows shall be at least 1/8-inch thick. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 70 c. Double-glazed windows shall employ fixed sash or efficiently weather stripped operable sash. The sash shall be rigid and weather stripped with material that is compressed air tight when the window is closed so as to conform to an infiltration test not to exceed 0.5-cubic foot per minute per foot of crack of length in accordance with ASTM E-283-65-T. d. Glass of fixed-sash windows shall be sealed in an airtight manner with a non-hardening sealant, or a soft elastomer gasket or glazing tape. e. The perimeter of window frames shall be sealed airtight to the exterior wall construction with a sealant conforming to one of the following Federal Specifications: TT-S-00230, or TT-S-00153. f. The total area of glass of both windows and exterior doors in sleeping spaces shall not exceed 20 percent of the floor space. 5. Doors a. Doors, other than as described in this section shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC-35. b. The glass of double-glazed sliding doors shall be separated by an airspace. Each sliding frame shall be provided with an efficiently airtight weather stripping material as specified in Section 4C. c. Glass of all doors shall be at least 3/16-inch thick. Glass of double sliding doors shall not be equal in thickness. d. The perimeter of door frames shall be sealed airtight to the exterior wall construction. e. Glass of doors shall be set and sealed in an airtight non-hardening sealant, or a soft elastomer gasket or glazing tape. 6. Roofs a. Combined roof and ceiling construction other than described in this section and Section 7 shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC-44. b. With an attic or rafter space at least 6 inches deep, and with a ceiling below, the roof shall consist of closely butted 1/2-inch composition board, plywood or gypsum board sheathing topped by roofing as required. c. If the underside of the roof is exposed, or if the attic or rafter spacing is less than 6 inches, the roof construction shall have a surface weight of at least 40 pounds per square foot. Rafters joists, or other framing may not be included in the surface weight calculation. d. Window or dome skylights shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC-33. 7. Ceilings a. Gypsum board or plaster ceilings at least 1/2-inch thick shall be provided where required by Paragraph 6.b above. Ceilings shall be substantially airtight, with a minimum number of penetrations. b. Glass fiber or mineral wool insulation at least 3.5-inch thick shall be provided above the ceiling between joists. 8. Floors The floor of the lowest occupied rooms shall be slab on fill, below grade, or over a fully enclosed basement. All door and window openings in the fully enclosed basement shall be tightly fitted. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 71 9. Ventilation a. A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed that will provide at least two air changes per hour with at least 20 percent fresh air supply requirements for various use in occupied rooms without the need to open any windows, doors, or other openings to the exterior. b. Gravity vent openings in attic shall not exceed code minimum in number and size. The openings shall be fitted with transfer ducts at least 3 feet in length containing internal sound absorbing duct lining. Each duct shall have a lined 90-degree bend in the duct such that there is no direct line of sight from the exterior through the duct into the attic. c. If a fan is used for forced ventilation, the attic inlet and discharge openings shall be fitted with sheet metal transfer ducts of at least 20-gauge steel, which shall be lined with 1-inch thick coated glass fiber, and shall be at least 5 feet long with one 90-degree bend. d. All vent ducts connecting the interior space to the outdoors, except in domestic range exhaust ducts, shall contain at least a 10-foot length of internal sound absorbing duct lining. Each duct shall be provided with a lined 90-degree bend in the duct such that there is no direct line of sight through the duct from the venting cross section to the room opening cross section. e. Duct lining shall be coated glass fiber duct liner at least 1-inch thick. f. Domestic range exhaust ducts connecting the interior space to the outdoors shall contain a baffle plate across the exterior termination that allows proper ventilation. The dimensions of the baffle plate should extend at least one diameter beyond the line of sight into the vent duct. The baffle plate shall be of the same material and thickness as the vent duct material. g. Building heating units with flues or combustion air vents shall be located in a closet or room closed off from the occupied space by doors. h. Doors between occupied space and mechanical equipment areas shall be solid core wood or 20-gauge steel hollow metal at least 1-3/4-inch thick and shall be fully weather stripped. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact – Temporary construction noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by earth- moving sources, then by foundation construction and building construction. As shown in Figure XII-2, heavy equipment noise can exceed 90 dB(A) and averages about 85 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source when the equipment is operating at typical loads. Most heavy equipment operates with varying load cycles over any extended period of time. The upper end of the noise generation range shown in Figure XII-2 thus represents short-term effects, while the longer term averages are most representative of the lower end of the indicated noise curves. Point sources of noise emissions are atmospherically attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The loudest construction may require 500 feet of distance between the source and a nearby receiver to reduce the average 85 dB(A) source strength to a generally acceptable 65 dB exterior exposure level. However, existing single event noise from freight trains routinely exceeds these levels, including many times at night. Temporary construction equipment noise, particularly during demolition of structures and hardscape will not be a substantial increase compared to existing levels. There will be a limited period of time when the frequency of loud events may increase (both from construction equipment and passing trains). However, the magnitude of the loudest single event noises will not increase because Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 72 the train engines are louder and closer to the existing homes to the south than is the on-site construction equipment. Construction noise impacts are considered to be less-than-significant. Per Section 9280 of the City’s Municipal Code, noise associated with construction activities is exempt from 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The City often times includes a condition of approval stating that no construction is permitted on Sundays. No other measures are required to achieve a less than significant impact level for noise. FIGURE XII-2 Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 73 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? Less Than Significant Impact – The Project site is within 1.9 mile of El Monte Municipal Airport. According to Figure 5.9-2, Airport Noise Contours, of the El Monte General Plan, the Project site is not located within the 70 CNEL noise contour surrounding the Airport. People will be present onsite for daily maintenance, operation and monitoring. Based on the nature of the use, and the distance from the noise generated by airport activities, noise from the airport at this location is not excessive. Any impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. 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? No Impact – The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airport. Therefore, no potential to expose people to excessive noise from private aircraft operations will result. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 74 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XIII. 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)? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X SUBSTANTIATION: 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)? Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed Project will create 74 new residential units with a potential population of approximately 218 persons. Relative to the total number residents of the City of Temple City, the population generation of the Project is incremental and will not result in significant population growth or exceed population projections. The current General Plan designation for the Project site is Industrial. The General Plan Land Use designation does not allow any residential development within this designation. Based on the proposed tract map, the Project proposes 74 dwelling units and the anticipated population generated from the Project is estimated to be 218 persons. This would result in 218 more persons residing on the Project site than is currently permitted with the Industrial land use designation. Thus, on a Project-specific basis, the proposed Project would increase the estimated population that could occupy this property. An increase of 218 additional residents and 74 dwelling units, which will result from the proposed Project General Plan Amendment, constitutes a 0.61 percent increase over the current population for population and 0.61 percent increase for dwelling units respectively. Thus, the proposed Project does not have a potential to induce “substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.” All required infrastructure is available within existing roadways, either adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, no major extension of infrastructure, and related growth inducement, will result from implementing the proposed Project. No significant population or housing impacts are forecast to occur from Project implementation. Any impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. b&c) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; or, displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 75 No Impact – No homes are located on the Project site, (which includes people); therefore, implementation of the Project will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, or displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts will occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 76 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Recreation/Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X SUBSTANTIATION: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact – Fire services for the City of Temple City are provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. According to the General Plan’s Technical Report (Public Safety section, p. PS- 1), the city is served by three Fire Stations; one in Temple City, one in Rosemead, and one in San Gabriel. Fire Station 47, located at 5946 N. Kauffman Avenue in Temple City, is approximately 1.5 miles from the project site. Station 47 is staffed full time, 24 hours 7 days a week with a 5 person crew including paramedics. They have 1 fire engine and 1 paramedic unit (Verified through personal communication with Captain Divan on October 17, 2013). Fire Station 42, located at 9319 Valley Blvd. in Rosemead, provides service for the project site and is less than 1 mile from the project site. Station 42 is staffed full time, 24 hours 7 days a week with a 4 person crew. They have 1 fire engine (Verified through personal communication with Captain Favatella on October 17, 2013). Fire Station 5, located at 7225 Rosemead Blvd. in San Gabriel, is approximately 3 miles from the project site. Station 5 is staffed full time, 24 hours 7 days a week with a 3 person crew. They have 1 fire engine (Verified through personal communication with Captain Arvizu on October 17, 2013). Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 77 b) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact – Law enforcement services for the City of Temple City are provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The Temple Station provides service for the City and is located at 8838 Las Tunas Drive. According to the City’s Public Safety Supervisor, Bryan Ariizumi, the Temple Station currently maintains at least two officer covering the City at night and during the day up to four officers provide law enforcement services to the City. The proposed Project is an incremental addition to the City and this small increment is not forecast to cause a significant increase in demand for law enforcement services within the City. c) Schools? Less Than Significant Impact – The Rosemead School District will provide public elementary/middle school education and the El Monte High School District will provide high school education for the area, which encompasses the Project site. The Project site does not currently have any residences and does not place any demand on the existing school District. The Project will create 74 new residential units with a potential population of approximately 218 persons (2.8 persons/household). The Project is expected to generate students at a rate of 0.4 elementary students, 0.1 junior high school students, and 0.2 high school students. For the 74 dwelling unit scenario, this would result in approximately 29 new elementary school students, 7 junior high school students, and 15 high school students at buildout. The student generation total for the proposed Project is forecast to be approximately 51 new students. Individual developments within the City of Temple City would be required to pay school impact fees under Government Code Section 65995; the amounts of these fees are currently $2.97 per square foot for residential developments and $0.47 per square foot for commercial and industrial projects (Becerra 2010). School fees levied by school districts under SB 50 are defined as comprising full mitigation for a project’s impacts on public schools. d) Recreation/Parks? Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed Project includes creation of three small community pocket parks. It does not include the creation of any new recreation area within the proposed development. Furthermore, the applicant will be contributing additional funds than the normal $500.00 per unit parks fee, which is stated in the Development Agreement. e) Other public facilities? Does Not Apply – None known. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 78 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XV. 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 SUBSTANTIATION: 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? Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed Project will incrementally increase the demand for parks and recreational facilities. The 74 residential units may support a population of up to approximately 218 residents. The City currently has 0.55 acres of parks per 1,000 persons. Unlike other cities in California, the City does not currently have a general requirement for acres of park area per 1,000 persons. However, the City is aware of the issue and has hired a consult to develop a Parks and Open Space Master Plan. The proposed Project will have 0.476 acres of private recreation on-site, including three pocket parks and one recreational area located near the entrance of the Project. The City requires the payment of fees for park and recreation services as part of its Development Impact Fee (DIF) structure. Fees are considered sufficient to fund park and recreation facilities to support the population generated by the proposed Project. The Project Applicant has agreed to pay above the City’s required 500 per unit park fee, which is specified in the Development Agreement. With payment of the DIF park and recreation fees and satisfaction of the Quimby requirement and providing three pocket parks within the development, the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative demand for park and recreation resources is reduced to a less than significant level of impact. No additional mitigation is required. 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? No Impact – There are no existing recreational uses on the Project site. There are no impacts and no mitigation is required. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 79 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XVI. 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? X 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? X 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? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersec- tions) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equip- ment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X 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 SUBSTANTIATION: a&b) 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; or, 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? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – RK Engineering Group, Inc., prepared a traffic impact study (TIS) - Single Family Residential 9250 Lower Azusa Road Traffic Impact Study, Temple City, California, dated September 6, 2013 for the proposed Project. The purpose of the TIS was to evaluate the 74 single family attached and detached residential development, located at 9250 Lower Azusa Road, Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 80 from a traffic circulation standpoint. The proposed development is located within Temple City. It should be noted that the Temple City Traffic Impact Study guidelines follow the County of Los Angeles guidelines and requirements. A copy of the TIS is provided as Appendix 5 to this document. TIS objectives include: 1) Documentation of Existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site with existing lane geometry; 2) Evaluation of Existing Plus Ambient Growth (Year 2016) conditions; 3) Evaluation of Existing Plus Ambient Growth (Year 2016) Plus Project conditions; 4) Evaluation of Existing Plus Ambient Growth (Year 2016) Plus Project and Cumulative Developments traffic conditions; and 5) Determination of on-site and off-site improvements and system management actions needed to achieve the County of Los Angeles level of service requirements. The Project will have access to Lower Azusa Drive, as shown Figure 6, Tentative Tract Map No. 72407. The opening year for this Project is anticipated to be Year 2016. The study area includes the following intersections: North-South Street East-West Street Encinita Avenue Lower Azusa Road Temple City Boulevard Lower Azusa Road Exhibit C of the TIS identifies the existing roadway conditions for the study area roadways. The number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection controls are identified. Existing (adjusted) AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the study area intersections are shown on Exhibit D of the TIS. These volumes are based upon manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts collected for RK in August 2013. The traffic count worksheets are included in Appendix A of the TIS. It should be noted that due to the traffic counts being collected during the summer and during the Baldwin Avenue construction, Temple City’s Traffic Engineer directed RK to adjust the traffic volumes as follows: • At the intersection of Encinita Avenue at Lower Azusa Road, all traffic movements were increased by 10% during the AM Peak hour to account for the expected increase in traffic once the nearby schools are back in session. However, since the school PM peak hour is not exactly the same as commuter PM peak hour, RK was directed to only increase the PM traffic movements by 5%. • At the intersection of Temple City Boulevard at Lower Azusa Road, the same adjustments as the intersection of Encinita Avenue at Lower Azusa Road have been made; a 10% increase for AM peak hour movements and 5% increase for PM peak hour movements. However, the Baldwin Avenue construction detour affects primarily the westbound left turn and northbound right turn movements at this intersection; therefore, a 5% decrease in traffic volumes at these movements seem appropriate. The adjusted traffic counts worksheets are included in Appendix B of the TIS. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 81 Project Buildout is planned for the Year 2016. The TIS assumed a background traffic growth rate of 1% per year, based upon the 2010 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Guidelines (per RSA 22). Therefore, a 3% of total growth was assumed for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth conditions. Cumulative projects within a 1.5-mile radius of the proposed Project were been considered for inclusion in this TIS. Because of the site’s proximity to other jurisdictions, the traffic consultant contacted the City of El Monte and the City of Rosemead. The City of Rosemead did not have any projects within a 1.5-mile radius of the proposed Project. The City of El Monte has two (2) projects within 1.5 miles of the proposed Project. Temple City has does not have any major projects located approximately 1.5 miles from the proposed project Site. The City of Temple City has established Level of Service (LOS) “D” as the maximum allowable threshold for the intersection operations. Therefore, LOS “E” or “F” is considered unacceptable and requires improvement measures. Level of Service for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth Conditions Intersection levels of service for the adjusted existing network with ambient growth are shown on Table 6 of the TIS. For Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth traffic conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during peak hours. ICU calculation worksheets for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth conditions are provided in Appendix D of the TIS. Level of Service for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth and Project Traffic Conditions Intersection levels of service for the adjusted existing network with ambient growth and project traffic are shown in Table 7 of the TIS. For Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth and Project traffic conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during peak hours. Level of Service for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative Traffic Conditions Intersection Levels of Service for the adjusted existing network with background growth, proposed project and the cumulative projects are shown in Table 8 of the TIS. For Existing (Adjusted) With Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative Traffic conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during peak hours. ICU calculation worksheets for Existing (Adjusted) With Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative Traffic conditions are provided in Appendix F of the TIS. Lower Azusa Road Queuing A queuing analysis was prepared as part of the TIS for the potential stacking of vehicles traveling westbound on Lower Azusa Road, adjacent to the proposed Project access point. The City is concerned that during heavy congestion, vehicles will queue at the intersection of Encinita Avenue at Lower Azusa Road and will possibly obstruct vehicles from turning left from the project driveway onto Lower Azusa Road. Based on this analysis, there is an anticipated design queue of eleven (11) vehicles per thru lane traveling westbound. Assuming each vehicle accounts to 25 feet of roadway, the anticipated queue length traveling westbound on Lower Azusa Road will be 275 feet. Therefore, there is an additional 300 feet of available roadway for vehicles to queue, excluding the 125 feet of ‘Keep Clear’ railroad crossing area, until the project driveway is blocked. Based on this analysis, it is estimated that vehicles queuing from Encinita Avenue at Lower Azusa Road will not stack up beyond the project driveway under existing or future conditions. It should be noted that if the Union Railroad, located adjacent to the project driveway, Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 82 is in operation, there is a possibility that vehicles will queue momentarily beyond the project driveway while a train passes. The proposed Project will be required to complete half-width frontage improvements on Lower Azusa Road, as a condition of approval. With the installment of these improvements, proposed Project impacts will remain less than significant. No other mitigation is required. 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? No Impact – The Project will not 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. The nature of this Project will not have any impact. No mitigation is required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersec- tions) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated – The Project will not result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections), incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment) or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. The Project is required to comply with City standards for street design and sight distances at Project access points will be reviewed at the time of review and approval of final grading plans. Intersection sight distance at the intersection of the proposed Project driveway at Lower Azusa Road was analyzed in the TIS. In this analysis, the driver’s eye height is assumed to be 3.5 feet while in a vehicle at an intersection 15 feet back from the projection of the curb line. The object height is assumed to be 3.5 feet. Exhibit O of the TIS shows the intersection sight distance analysis at the intersection of the proposed Project driveway at Lower Azusa Road. The required intersection sight distance for this driveway is 445 feet for both left and right turns out of the driveway. This sight distance is based upon full access driveways, without access restrictions. The speed limit of Lower Azusa Road, adjacent to the site is 40 miles per hour. Per the sight distance standards, a limited use area should be established and maintained to provide a clear line of sight for vehicles negotiating this intersection. Trees, bushes, and architectural décor should not block the line of sight requirements at the proposed Project intersection with Lower Azusa Road. Currently, the existing landscaping and signage along Lower Azusa Road allows for sufficient sight distance for a vehicle to turn left and right out of the proposed Project access point. As is the case for any roadway design, Temple City should periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the site once the project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory. XVI-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a limited use area should be established and maintained to provide a clear line of sight for vehicles negotiating the proposed Project entry intersection with Lower Azusa Road. Trees, bushes, and architectural décor shall not block the line of sight requirements at the proposed Project intersection with Lower Azusa Road and shall allow for sufficient sight distance for a vehicle to turn left and right out of the proposed Project access point. XVI-2 Temple City shall periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the site once the project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 83 With the implementation of these mitigation measures, any impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Emergency access to the Project site after development is implemented will remain the same as what currently exists. Adequate access can be maintained during construction by appropriate signage and traffic management. The following mitigation measure will be implemented. XVI-3 At all times during construction of the site improvements, the site developer shall ensure that emergency fire or medical vehicles are able to access all areas along the Project alignment during construction. The Developer shall submit an acceptable temporary traffic routing plan to ensure that adequate circulation capacity is being maintained to serve emergency functions (including emergency response and emergency evacuation plans) along adjacent Project roadways. 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? No Impact – The Project will not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The Project is considered in-fill in an existing area, and implementation of the proposed Project will not conflict with any potential future routing in this area. No impacts are forecast; therefore no mitigation measures are required. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 84 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X 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 c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X 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 commitments? X f) Be served by a landfill(s) 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 SUBSTANTIATION: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact – The only wastewater generated by the project will be collected and delivered to the Whittier Narrows Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) operated by the County of Los Angeles. Based on the adequate treatment capacity, 15 mgd capacity with approximately 7.75 mgd currently being used, the proposed project has no potential to cause the existing WRF to exceed any wastewater treatment capacity. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed Project consists of 74 single family residential units. The forecast population of this development is 218 persons. Assuming 150 gpd per capita, total demand on the water system will be 32,700 gpd. Similarly, it is estimated that 250 gpd of wastewater will be Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 85 generated per unit, or 18,500 gpd. The 18,500 gpd wastewater generation rate does not cause the WRF to exceed capacity nor require the construction of new wastewater facilities. The water “Will Serve Notice,” provided by California American Water Co., dated April 26, 2012 for the proposed Project states: “This is to advise that California American Water will supply water service, without exception to the subject property. However, arrangements may have to be made for the installation of water service(s) or other appurtenances. Any costs associated with the installation of water service(s) or other appurtenances will be the sole responsibility of the property owner. The quality of water delivered by California American Water meets all requirements of the California State Department of Health services and the Los Angeles County Health Department.” The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County has provided a Will Serve Letter for the Project. The letter indicates that the wastewater flow originating from the proposed project can discharge directly to the District’s Joint Outfall B Unit Trunk Sewer, located in Encinita Avenue at Lower Azusa Road. This 24-inch diameter trunk sewer has a design capacity of 11.7 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 7.5 mgd when last measured in 2008. The letter further states that the wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) located adjacent to the City of industry, which has a design capacity of 100 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 76.8 mgd, or the Whittier Narrows WRP located near the City of South El Monte, which has a design capacity of 15 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 8.3 mgd. Based on this information, implementation of the proposed Project will have an incremental impact on existing waters supply and on wastewater treatment demand; however, since these systems have adequate capacity, impacts will be considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact – The project site is presently covered primarily by impervious pavement and therefore most of the rainfall that fall on the project site is already delivered to the regional stormwater drainage facilities. The proposed project will add both more pervious surface (landscaped areas) and an onsite stormwater collection system that will detain and treat future stormwater runoff before it is discharged to the regional drainage system. Although a new onsite drainage system will be installed as part of this project, there will be no need to construct or expand the regional facilities. Thus, potential effects on the stormwater system are forecast to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact – Refer to the discussion under issue b) above. In its will serve letter, California American Water Co. indicates it has sufficient water supply available to meet the additional demand by this project. No mitigation is required. 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? Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed Project will generate demand for wastewater treatment. According to the letters, provided by County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, February 25, 2013 and dated October 19, 2012, for the proposed Project, existing facilities are adequately designed to Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 86 accommodate the wastewater generated by the proposed Project. Incremental impacts from the proposed Project will be addressed thorough system design and payment of connection fees. Based on this information, implementation of the proposed Project will have an incremental impact on existing wastewater facilities; however, since existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the proposed Project, impacts will be considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. f&g) Be served by a landfill(s) with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs; or, comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed Project will generate demand for solid waste service system capacity and has a potential to contribute to potentially significant cumulative demand impacts on the solid waste system. To estimate the volume of solid waste, it is assumed that each person will generate about 1.1 lbs of solid waste per day. With a population estimated at 218 for the Project, this would result in the generation of approximately 87,527 lbs of solid waste per day, or about 44 tons per year. The Puente Hills MRF is owned and operated by the Sanitation Districts. The purpose of the Puente Hills MRF is to provide waste diversion and publicly-owned transfer capacity for Los Angeles County. This facility helps Los Angeles County meet the 50 percent diversion rate required under California law while providing for cost effective transfer of municipal solid waste to landfills using transfer trucks or rail. The MRF is located on approximately 25 acres and comprises the processing building, administrative offices, scales, parking, and maintenance areas. The processing building is approximately 215,000 square feet and approximately 55 feet tall. Waste is delivered to the Puente Hills MRF in collection trucks, which discharge their loads inside of the enclosed processing building. Recyclable materials including various grades of paper and cardboard are recovered through a combination of manual and mechanical methods. Residual waste is placed into large capacity trailers for transfer to permitted landfills. Currently, residual waste from the Puente Hills MRF is hauled to landfills in trucks. When the Sanitation Districts' Waste-by- Rail system becomes operational, it is projected that residual waste from the Puente Hills MRF will be loaded into rail containers and delivered to the Puente Hills Intermodal Facility for transfer to remote landfills via rail. The Puente Hills MRF began operation in July 2005. The facility is permitted to accept 4,400 tons per day and 24,000 tons per week of municipal solid waste. Athens Services is the City’s contracted waste hauler. Athens Services hauls refuse from residences in Temple City to the City of Industry Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). This was the first and only mixed waste processor in Los Angeles County when it began operating in 1996. It was expanded and improved in 2007 and is currently one of the highest-diverting mixed waste MRFs in southern California. This state- of-the-art facility can process 5,000 tons of mixed material each day with virtually no noise or odor impact to the surrounding community. The operations for the MRF are fully enclosed and utilize forced air circulation with carbon filters to assist in odor control. The Athens MRF is strategically located adjacent to the 605 and 60 freeways enabling Athens Services to effectively accommodate cities in the counties of Los Angeles, Riverside and Orange. Additionally, Athens has constructed a separate facility for the processing of construction and demolition debris. Their facility diversion is certified and rated as one of the highest in the Los Angeles area. The materials can be characterized to evaluate a project's diversion rate and ensure compliance with sustainability and LEED® objectives. Combined with the City’s mandatory source reduction and recycling program, the proposed Project is not forecast to cause a significant adverse impact to the solid waste disposal system. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 87 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or Does Not Apply XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? ("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 SUBSTANTIATION: 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? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The project site does not have any natural biological resources. Therefore, the proposed residential development will not cause any adverse impacts to such resources. Due to past grading, development and occupancy of the project site, no archaeological resources can remain above ground with any integrity. However, prior to initiating construction of the project, the existing abandoned structures proposed for demolition will need to be evaluated for any historical values. Mitigation is required to ensure these structures received adequate consideration of historical values prior to initiating demolition. 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)? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The Project has six potential impacts which are individually limited, but may be cumulatively considerable. These are: air quality, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise and traffic. The Project is not considered growth-inducing, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines (http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/). Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 88 The Project’s construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants will be less than the SCAQMD regional thresholds, and the Project is consistent with the mitigation measures identified by SCAQMD. The Project’s contribution to global climate change is not considered cumulatively considerable. The Project will implement best management practices to control degradation of hazards, water quality, noise and traffic. Mitigation measures are provided to ensure noise levels do not exceed acceptable levels within the Project area. Lastly, the Project is consistent with the applicable Community Plan and will operate at an acceptable level of service at full buildout; thus, the Project will not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts with respect to circulation. With implementation of identified mitigation measures, potential impacts of the proposed Project will be controlled to a less than cumulatively considerable level. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The short-term impacts associated with the Project, which are mainly construction-related impacts, are less than significant with mitigation, and the proposed Project is compatible with long-term environmental protection, with implementation of extensive noise mitigation measures for the future individual residences. The potentially significant adverse effects on humans include: air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise. Mitigation measures have been identified to prevent these potential impacts from having a significant impact on humans. Conclusion This document evaluated all CEQA issues contained in the latest Initial Study Checklist form. The evaluation determined that either no impact or less than significant impacts would be associated with the issues of aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, greenhouse gases, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation and utilities and services. The issues of air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation and circulation, require the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce Project specific and cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. The required mitigation has been proposed in this Initial Study to reduce impacts for these issues to a less than significant impact level. Based on the findings in this Initial Study, the City of Temple City proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Project. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigation Negative Declaration (NOI) will be issued for this Project by the City. The Initial Study and NOI will be circulated for 20 days of public comment because there is no known State Trustee or Responsible Agencies under CEQA for this project. At the end of the 20-day review period, a final MND package will be prepared and it will be reviewed by the City for possible adoption at a future Council meeting, the date for which has yet to be determined. If you or your agency comments on the MND/NOI for this Project, you will be notified about the meeting date in accordance with the requirements in Section 21092.5 of CEQA (statute). Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 89 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES Air Quality III-1 Fugitive Dust Construction activities are not anticipated to cause dust emissions to exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. Nevertheless, mitigation through enhanced dust control measures is recommended for use because of the non-attainment status of the air basin.  Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive disturbed areas.  Prepare and implement a high wind dust control plan.  Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed.  Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas.  Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed.  Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials.  Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone  Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard  Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site III-2 Exhaust Emission Controls Similarly, ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) are calculated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. However, because of the regional non-attainment for photochemical smog, the use of reasonably available control measures for diesel exhaust is recommended.  Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.  Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or cleaner heavy equipment.  Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment. III-3 Occupancy Emissions Operational emissions are not anticipated to exceed their respective SCAQMD significance thresholds with application of the following measure:  Utilize SCAQMD approved Rule 445 devices rather than wood burning fireplaces for any residential use.  All residential living areas shall be equipped with air filtration systems operating under positive pressure rated at MERV 14 or higher.  Replacement filters shall be made available through the HOA for the project.  The substantial tree canopy shall be established along the southern site boundary to act as a living bio-filter for particulate pollution. Cultural Resources V-1 Should any cultural resources be encountered during construction of these facilities, earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection shall be performed immediately by a qualified archaeologist. This professional shall assess the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. V-2 Prior to any demolition, or disturbances on the proposed Project site, a field inspection of the Project area, including all existing buildings and other built-environment features within the Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 90 proposed Project boundaries. Since the Project area is fully developed and virtually all open space is covered with pavement, gravel or structures, with no undisturbed ground surface visible, field procedures shall be focused primarily on buildings, structures, objects, and other features that appeared to date to the historic period—i.e., more than 45 years of age. V-3 Any cultural resources within, or adjacent to, the proposed Project site shall be analyzed to determine whether such resources meet the official definition of "historical resources," as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in particular CEQA. Based on this analysis, a detailed mitigation plan, if necessary, shall be developed and implemented. V-4 Should any paleontologic resources be encountered during construction of these facilities, earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection should be performed immediately by a qualified paleontologist. This professional shall assess the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. Geology and Soils VI-1 All inhabited structures shall be designed to do the following: a. Resist minor earthquakes without damage; b. Resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some nonstructural damage; and c. Resist major earthquakes, of the intensity or severity of the strongest forecast to occur within the City of Temple City, without collapse, but with some structural, as well as nonstructural damage. VI-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, additional analysis shall be performed to determine the depth of groundwater levels. If said levels are not likely to rise above a depth of 50 feet, then no special mitigation is required. If the groundwater level exceeds this threshold, then hazards from liquefaction shall be mitigated to “acceptable levels” in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 3721(a). Methods to reduce liquefaction hazards may include, but not be limited to: e. Well-reinforced foundations; f. Post-tensioned slabs; g. Grade beams with structural slabs; or h. Mat foundations. Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities will be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant released. The contaminated waste will be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. This measure will be incorporated into the SWPPP prepared for the Project development. VIII-2 The developer shall notify the selected construction contractor that the structures may contain asbestos or lead paint and testing shall be completed prior to demolition. If asbestos or lead paint is encountered, the construction contractor shall remove these materials to accepted background concentrations from all locations where such materials are encountered, and the material shall be handled in accordance with existing laws and regulations in place at the time of implementation. All contaminated material shall be disposed of at an appropriately licensed Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 91 facility (such as a landfill authorized to handle the contaminated waste) and transported in accordance with regulations in place at the time of removal. VIII-3 Vapor mitigation, in the form of vapor barriers, is recommended below approximately fourteen of the proposed units planned for the eastern portion of the Site. If changes are made to t he proposed layout of the Site that alters the density of proposed structures in this area, it is recommended that further evaluation for vapor mitigation would be necessary for any additional structures. VIII-4 The developer shall notify the selected construction contractor that a potential exists to encounter arsenic and lead impacted soils at the site. The contractor shall be prepared to detect, excavate, document and dispose of contaminated materials in compliance with applicable laws and regulations at the time of construction if contaminated soils are encountered. The arsenic and lead impacted soils from Areas 1 through 4 be excavated and disposed of at an offsite facility under oversight from the SMU in order to receive regulatory closure of this issue. Hydrology and Water Quality IX-1 Prior to the approval of the grading permit, the City shall review and approve the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan as required by the program requirements in effect at the time grading is proposed. Noise XII-1 Sound Wall (16-foot) No additional mitigation necessary except the ability to close dual paned windows and the provision of supplemental ventilation Sound Wall (12-foot) First Story: no mitigation required Second Story: 30 dB mitigation package (provided in Table XII-5) Provision of supplemental ventilation No Wall First and Second Story: 30 dB mitigation package (provided in Table XII-5) Provision of supplemental ventilation Transportation / Traffic XVI-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a limited use area should be established and maintained to provide a clear line of sight for vehicles negotiating the proposed Project entry intersection with Lower Azusa Road. Trees, bushes, and architectural décor shall not block the line of sight requirements at the proposed Project intersection with Lower Azusa Road and shall allow for sufficient sight distance for a vehicle to turn left and right out of the proposed Project access point. XVI-2 Temple City shall periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the site once the project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory. XVI-3 At all times during construction of the site improvements, the site developer shall ensure tha t emergency fire or medical vehicles are able to access all areas along the Project alignment during construction. The Developer shall submit an acceptable temporary traffic routing plan to ensure that adequate circulation capacity is being maintained to serve emergency functions Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 92 (including emergency response and emergency evacuation plans) along adjacent Project roadways. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 93 REFERENCES Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc., Revised Geotechnical Due-Diligence Report, Proposed Residential Development, October 4, 2012 CRM TECH, Historical / Archaeological Resources Records Search, Temple City, California , October 18, 2013 Giroux & Associates, Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, 9250 Lower Azusa Road, Temple City, California, October 23, 2013 Giroux & Associates, Noise Impact Analysis, 9250 Lower Azusa Road, Temple City, California, October 31, 2013 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Will Serve Letter, October 19, 2012 County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, UST Closure Letter, February 7, 2013 METRO, Congestion Mitigation Fee Feasibility Report, September 2008 METRO, San Gabriel Valley Congestion Mitigation Fee Pilot Nexus Study Report, revised September 2012 RK Engineering Group, Inc., Single-Family Residential 9250 Lower Azusa Road, Traffic Impact Study, September 6, 2013 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, May 22, 2012 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, October 5, 2012 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Additional Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, November 1, 2012 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Site Characterization Assessment, July 8, 2013 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Site-Specific Sampling and Analysis Plan, February 28, 2013 City of Temple City, Initial Study and Negative Declaration, Draft 2006-2014 Housing Element, March 26, 2013 City of Temple City website http://www.ci.temple-city.ca.us/Census/Census,%20Demographic%20Trend%202000_2010.pdf (October 21, 2013) Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES FIGURES FIGURE 1 Regional Location Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 2 Site Location Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 3 Aerial Photo Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 4 Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 5 Existing and Current Zoning Designations Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 6 Tentative Tract Map No. 72407 Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 7 Major Site Plan Review – Landscape Plan Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 8 Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 9a Major Site Plan Review – Elevations Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 9b Major Site Plan Review – Elevations Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 9c Major Site Plan Review – Elevations Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 9d Major Site Plan Review – Elevations Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 9e Major Site Plan Review – Elevations Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 9f Major Site Plan Review – Elevations Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 9g Major Site Plan Review – Elevations Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 9h Major Site Plan Review – Elevations Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 9i Major Site Plan Review – Elevations Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants FIGURE 10 Utility Plan Tom Dodson & Associates Environmental Consultants Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES APPENDIX 1 Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES APPENDIX 2 AIR QUALITY and GHG IMPACT ANALYSES 9250 LOWER AZUSA ROAD TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: Giroux & Associates 1820 E Garry St., #211 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Prepared for: Tom Dodson & Associates Attn: Tom Dodson 2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, California 92405 Date: October 23, 2013 Project No.: P13-035 AQ Temple City AQ - 2 - ATMOSPHERIC SETTING The climate of Temple City, as with all of Southern California, is governed largely by the strength and location of the semi-permanent high-pressure center over the Pacific Ocean and the moderating effects of the nearby vast oceanic heat reservoir. Local climatic conditions are characterized by very warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime on- shore breezes, and comfortable humidities. Unfortunately, the same climatic conditions that create such a desirable living climate combine to severely restrict the ability of the local atmosphere to disperse the large volumes of air pollution generated by the population and industry attracted in part by the climate. Temple City is situated in an area where the pollutants generated in coastal portions of the Los Angeles basin undergo photochemical reactions and then move inland across the project site during the daily sea breeze cycle. The resulting smog at times gives the western San Gabriel Valley some of the worst air quality in all of California. The worst air quality, however, has gradually been moving eastward. The area of heaviest ozone air pollution has gradually moved eastward from Pasadena in the 1960’s to Glendora and even Upland/Ontario in the 1990’s. Peak smog levels are now found in elevated mountain communities such as Wrightwood or Crestline in response to the continuing shift of the smog maximum. Elevated smog levels nevertheless persist in the area during the warmer months of the year. Despite dramatic improvement in air quality in the local area throughout the last several decades, the project site is expected to continue to experience some unhealthful air quality until beyond 2020. Temperatures in the project vicinity average 62 degrees Fahrenheit annually with summer afternoons in the low 90s and winter mornings in the low 40s. Temperatures much above 100 or below 30 degrees occur infrequently only under unusual weather conditions and even then these limits are not far exceeded. In contrast to the slow annual variation of temperature, precipitation is highly variable seasonally. Rainfall in the San Gabriel Valley averages 14 inches annually and falls almost exclusively from late October to early April. Summers are very dry with frequent periods of 4-5 months of no rain at all. Because much of the rainfall comes from the fringes of mid-latitude storms, a shift in the storm track of a few hundred miles can mean the difference between a very wet year and a year with drought conditions. Winds across the project area are an important meteorological parameter because they control both the initial rate of dilution of locally generated air pollutant emissions as well as their regional trajectory. Local wind patterns show a fairly unidirectional daytime onshore flow from the SW-W with a very weak offshore return flow from the NE that is strongest on winter nights when the land is colder than the ocean. The onshore winds during the day average 6-8 mph, while the offshore flow is often calm or drifts slowly westward at 1-3 mph. During the daytime, any locally generated air emissions are thus transported eastward toward San Bernardino and Cajon Pass without generating any localized air quality impacts. Temple City AQ - 3 - The drainage winds which move slowly across the area at night have some potential for localized stagnation. Fortunately, these winds have their origin in the San Gabriel Mountains where background pollution levels are low such that any localized contributions do not create any unhealthful impacts. The wind distribution is such that nominal project-related air quality impacts occur more on a regional scale rather than in the immediate project area. One other important wind condition occurs when a high pressure center forms over the western United States with sinking air forced seaward through local canyons and mountain passes. The air warms by compression and relative humidities drop dramatically. The dry, gusty winds from the N-NE create dust nuisance potential around areas of soil disturbance such as construction sites. In conjunction with the two dominant wind regimes that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. The summer on-shore flow is capped by a massive dome of warm, sinking air which caps a shallow layer of cooler ocean air. These marine/subsidence inversions act like a giant lid over the basin. They allow for local mixing of emissions, but they confine the entire polluted air mass within the basin until it escapes into the desert or along the thermal chimneys formed along heated mountain slopes. In winter, when the air near the ground cools while the air aloft remains warm, radiation inversions are formed that trap low-level emissions such as automobile exhaust near their source. As background levels of primary vehicular exhaust rise during the seaward return flow, the combination of rising non-local baseline levels plus emissions trapped locally by these radiation inversions creates micro-scale air pollution "hot spots" near freeways, shopping centers and other traffic concentrations. Because the incoming air draining off the mountains into the San Gabriel Valley during nocturnal radiation inversion conditions is relatively clean, the summer subsidence inversions are a far more critical factor in determining Temple City area air quality than the winter time local trapping inversions. Temple City AQ - 4 - AIR QUALITY SETTING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (AAQS) In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed Olson Company Temple City residential project, those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however, that chronic exposure to ozone (the primary ingredient in photochemical smog) may lead to adverse respiratory health even at concentrations close to the ambient standard. National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended several times in air quality problem areas like Southern California. In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a rule, which extended and established a new attainment deadline for ozone for the year 2021. Because the State of California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 1. Sources and health effects of various pollutants are shown in Table 2. The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 required that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review all national AAQS in light of currently known health effects. EPA was charged with modifying existing standards or promulgating new ones where appropriate. EPA subsequently developed standards for chronic ozone exposure (8+ hours per day) and for very small diameter particulate matter (called "PM-2.5"). New national AAQS were adopted in 1997 for these pollutants. Planning and enforcement of the federal standards for PM-2.5 and for ozone (8-hour) were challenged by trucking and manufacturing organizations. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that EPA did not require specific congressional authorization to adopt national clean air standards. The Court also ruled that health-based standards did not require preparation of a cost-benefit analysis. The Court did find, however, that there was some inconsistency between existing and "new" standards in their required attainment schedules. Such attainment-planning schedule inconsistencies centered mainly on the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA subsequently agreed to downgrade the attainment designation for a large number of communities to “non-attainment” for the 8-hour ozone standard. Temple City AQ - 5 - Table 1 Temple City AQ - 6 - Table 1 (continued) Temple City AQ - 7 - Table 2 Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants Pollutants Sources Primary Effects Carbon Monoxide (CO) Incomplete combustion of fuels and other carbon-containing substances, such as motor exhaust. Natural events, such as decomposition of organic matter. Reduced tolerance for exercise. Impairment of mental function. Impairment of fetal development. Death at high levels of exposure. Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina). Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Motor vehicle exhaust. High temperature stationary combustion. Atmospheric reactions. Aggravation of respiratory illness. Reduced visibility. Reduced plant growth. Formation of acid rain. Ozone (O3) Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with nitrogen oxides in sunlight. Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Irritation of eyes. Impairment of cardiopulmonary function. Plant leaf injury. Lead (Pb)Contaminated soil.Impairment of blood function and nerve construction. Behavioral and hearing problems in children. Fine Particulate Matter (PM-10) Stationary combustion of solid fuels. Construction activities. Industrial processes. Atmospheric chemical reactions. Reduced lung function. Aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollutants. Aggravation of respiratory and cardio respiratory diseases. Increased cough and chest discomfort. Soiling. Reduced visibility. Fine Particulate Matter (PM-2.5) Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, equipment, and industrial sources. Residential and agricultural burning. Industrial processes. Also, formed from photochemical reactions of other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics. Increases respiratory disease. Lung damage. Cancer and premature death. Reduces visibility and results in surface soiling. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores. Industrial processes. Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma, emphysema). Reduced lung function. Irritation of eyes. Reduced visibility. Plant injury. Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, etc. Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002. Temple City AQ - 8 - Evaluation of the most current data on the health effects of inhalation of fine particulate matter prompted the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to recommend adoption of the statewide PM-2.5 standard that is more stringent than the federal standard. This standard was adopted in 2002. The State PM-2.5 standard is more of a goal in that it does not have specific attainment planning requirements like a federal clean air standard, but only requires continued progress towards attainment. Similarly, the ARB extensively evaluated health effects of ozone exposure. A new state standard for an 8-hour ozone exposure was adopted in 2005, which aligned with the exposure period for the federal 8-hour standard. The California 8-hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppm is more stringent than the federal 8-hour standard of 0.075 ppm. The state standard, however, does not have a specific attainment deadline. California air quality jurisdictions are required to make steady progress towards attaining state standards, but there are no hard deadlines or any consequences of non-attainment. During the same re-evaluation process, the ARB adopted an annual state standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2)that is more stringent than the corresponding federal standard, and strengthened the state one-hour NO2 standard. As part of EPA’s 2002 consent decree on clean air standards, a further review of airborne particulate matter (PM) and human health was initiated. A substantial modification of federal clean air standards for PM was promulgated in 2006. Standards for PM-2.5 were strengthened, a new class of PM in the 2.5 to 10 micron size was created, some PM-10 standards were revoked, and a distinction between rural and urban air quality was adopted. In December, 2012, the federal annual standard for PM-2.5 was reduced from 15 g/m3 to 12 g/m3 which matches the California AAQS. The severity of the basin’s non-attainment status for PM-2.5 may be increased by this action and thus require accelerated planning for future PM-2.5 attainment. In response to continuing evidence that ozone exposure at levels just meeting federal clean air standards is demonstrably unhealthful, EPA had proposed a further strengthening of the 8-hour standard. Draft standards were published. The anticipated future 8-hour standard was 0.065 ppm. Environmental organizations generally praised this proposal. Most manufacturing, transportation or power generation groups opposed the new standard as economically unwise in an uncertain fiscal climate. In recognition of the fact that a stronger ozone standard could adversely impact employment, that proposal has been placed on indefinite hold. A new federal one-hour standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) has also recently been adopted. This standard is more stringent than the existing state standard. Based upon air quality monitoring data in the South Coast Air Basin, the California Air Resources Board has requested the EPA to designate the basin as being in attainment for this standard. The federal standard for sulfur dioxide (SO2) was also recently revised. However, with minimal combustion of coal and mandatory use of low sulfur fuels in California, SO2 is typically not a problem pollutant. Temple City AQ - 9 - BASELINE AIR QUALITY Long-term air quality monitoring is carried out by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at various monitoring stations. There are no nearby stations that monitor the full spectrum of pollutants. Ozone, carbon monoxide, PM-2.5 and nitrogen oxides are monitored at the Pico Rivera facility, while 10-micron diameter particulate matter (PM-10) is measured at the Azusa station. Table 3 summarizes the last five years of monitoring data from a composite of these data resources. The following conclusions can be drawn from this data: a. Photochemical smog (ozone) levels occasionally exceed standards. The 8-hour state ozone standard as well as the 1-hour state standard have been exceeded slightly more than one percent of all days in the past five years. The 8-hour federal standard has been exceeded nine times for the same period. While ozone levels are still high, they are much lower than 10 to 20 years ago. Attainment of all clean air standards in the project vicinity is not likely to occur soon, but the severity and frequency of violations is expected to continue to slowly decline during the current decade b. Measurements of carbon monoxide have shown very low baseline levels in comparison to the most stringent one- and eight-hour standards. c. Respirable dust (PM-10) levels exceed the state standard on approximately 14 percent of measurement days, but the less stringent federal PM-10 standard has not been violated once for the same period. Year to year fluctuations of overall maximum 24-hour PM-10 levels seem to follow no discernable trend, though 2011 had the lowest maximum 24- hour concentration in recent history. d. A substantial fraction of PM-10 is comprised of ultra-small diameter particulates capable of being inhaled into deep lung tissue (PM-2.5). Year 2010 showed the fewest violations in recent years. Both the frequency of violations of particulate standards, as well as high percentage of PM-2.5, are occasional air quality concerns in the project area. Less than two percent of all days exceeded the current national 24-hour standard of 35 g/m3 from 2008-2012. Although complete attainment of every clean air standard is not yet imminent, extrapolation of the steady improvement trend suggests that such attainment could occur within the reasonably near future. Temple City AQ - 10 - Table 3 Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2008-2012) (Number of Days Standards Were Exceeded, and Maximum Levels During Such Violations) (Entries shown as ratios = samples exceeding standard/samples taken) Pollutant/Standard 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Ozone 1-Hour > 0.09 ppm (S)7 8 1 1 5 8-Hour > 0.07 ppm (S)12 6 1 1 6 8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F)5 3 1 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)0.11 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.11 Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)0.09 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.08 Carbon Monoxide 1-Hour > 20. ppm (S)0 0 0 0 0 1-Hour > 9. ppm (S, F)0 0 0 0 0 Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)2.9 2.5 2.3 2.7 xx Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)2.1 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.2 Nitrogen Dioxide 1-Hour > 0.18 ppm (S)0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)0.10 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.08 Inhalable Particulates (PM-10) 24-Hour > 50 g/m3 (S)12/49 7/52 5/55 8/61 6/61 24-Hour > 150 g/m3 (F)0/49 0/52 0/55 0/61 0/61 Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3)96. 72. 68. 63. 78. Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM-2.5) 24-Hour > 35 g/m3 (F)4/114 2/118 0/117 1/114 1/119 Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3)47.2 71.0 34.9 41.2 45.3 xx data not available S=State Standard F=Federal Standard Source: South Coast AQMD – Pico Rivera Air Monitoring Station for Ozone, CO, NOx and PM-2.5 Azusa Monitoring Station for PM-10 data: www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ Temple City AQ - 11 - AIR QUALITY PLANNING The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The SCAB could not meet the deadlines for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM-10. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times as earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic. The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air-sheds with “serious” or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and for carbon monoxide (CO) and for particulate matter are shown in Table 4. Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM-10 and PM-2.5 are forecast to slightly increase. The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air “blueprint” in August 2003. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was approved by the EPA in 2004. The AQMP outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health-based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM-10) by 2006. The 2003 AQMP was based upon the federal one-hour ozone standard which was revoked late in 2005 and replaced by an 8- hour federal standard. Because of the revocation of the hourly standard, a new air quality planning cycle was initiated. With re-designation of the air basin as non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, a new attainment plan was developed. This plan shifted most of the one-hour ozone standard attainment strategies to the 8-hour standard. As previously noted, the attainment date was to “slip” from 2010 to 2021. The updated attainment plan also includes strategies for ultimately meeting the federal PM-2.5 standard. Because projected attainment by 2021 requires control technologies that do not exist yet, the SCAQMD requested a voluntary “bump-up” from a “severe non-attainment” area to an “extreme non-attainment” designation for ozone. The extreme designation will allow a longer time period for these technologies to develop. If attainment cannot be demonstrated within the specified deadline without relying on “black-box” measures, EPA would have been required to impose sanctions on the region had the bump-up request not been approved. In April 2010, the EPA approved the change in the non-attainment designation from “severe-17” to “extreme.” This reclassification sets a later attainment deadline (2024), but also requires the air basin to adopt even more stringent emissions controls. Temple City AQ - 12 - Table 4 South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts (Emissions in tons/day) Pollutant 2008a 2010b 2015b 2020b NOx 917 836 667 561 ROG 632 596 545 525 CO 3,344 3,039 2,556 2,281 PM-10 308 314 328 340 PM-2.5 110 110 111 113 a2008 Base Year. bWith current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts. Source: California Air Resources Board, California Emissions Projection Analysis Model, 2009 In other air quality attainment plan reviews, EPA has disapproved part of the SCAB PM-2.5 attainment plan included in the AQMP. EPA has stated that the current attainment plan relies on PM-2.5 control regulations that have not yet been approved or implemented. It is expected that a number of rules that are pending approval will remove the identified issues. The recently adopted 2012 AQMP being readied for ARB submittal to EPA as part of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) is expected to remedy identified PM-2.5 planning deficiencies. The federal Clean Air Act requires that non-attainment air basins have EPA approved attainment plans in place. This requirement includes the federal one-hour ozone standard even though that standard was revoked around eight years ago. There was no approved attainment plan for the one-hour federal standard at the time of revocation. Through a legal quirk, the SCAQMD is now forced to develop an AQMP for the long since revoked one-hour federal ozone standard. Projects such as the proposed Olson Company residential development do not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing general development. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth-accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less-than- significant only because consistency with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project-specific basis. Temple City AQ - 13 - AIR QUALITY IMPACT STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Air quality impacts are considered “significant” if they cause clean air standards to be violated where they are currently met, or if they “substantially” contribute to an existing violation of standards. Any substantial emissions of air contaminants for which there is no safe exposure, or nuisance emissions such as dust or odors, would also be considered a significant impact. Appendix G of the California CEQA Guidelines offers the following five tests of air quality impact significance. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it: a. Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b. Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. c. Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants 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. Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e. Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Primary Pollutants Air quality impacts generally occur on two scales of motion. Near an individual source of emissions or a collection of sources such as a crowded intersection or parking lot, levels of those pollutants that are emitted in their already unhealthful form will be highest. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an example of such a pollutant. Primary pollutant impacts can generally be evaluated directly in comparison to appropriate clean air standards. Violations of these standards where they are currently met, or a measurable worsening of an existing or future violation, would be considered a significant impact. Many particulates, especially fugitive dust emissions, are also primary pollutants. Because of the non-attainment status of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) for PM-10, an aggressive dust control program is required to control fugitive dust during project construction. Secondary Pollutants Many pollutants, however, require time to transform from a more benign form to a more unhealthful contaminant. Their impact occurs regionally far from the source. Their incremental regional impact is minute on an individual basis and cannot be quantified except through complex photochemical computer models. Analysis of significance of such emissions is based Temple City AQ - 14 - upon a specified amount of emissions (pounds, tons, etc.) even though there is no way to translate those emissions directly into a corresponding ambient air quality impact. Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily emissions that exceed any of the following emission thresholds are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA guidelines. Daily Emissions Thresholds Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev. Additional Indicators In its CEQA Handbook, the SCAQMD also states that additional indicators should be used as screening criteria to determine the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. The additional indicators are as follows: Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP and in other than planned locations for the project’s build-out year. Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook also identifies various secondary significance criteria related to toxic, hazardous or odorous air contaminants. Except for the small diameter particulate matter (“PM-2.5”) fraction of diesel exhaust generated by heavy construction equipment, there are no secondary impact indicators associated with residential project construction and subsequent occupancy. Pollutant Construction Operations ROG 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PM-10 150 150 PM-2.5 55 55 SOx 150 150 Lead 3 3 Temple City AQ - 15 - For diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions, adopted policies require the gradual conversion of delivery fleets to diesel alternatives, or the use of cleaner diesel engines whose emissions are demonstrated to be as low as those from alternative fuels. Similarly, off-road equipment used in construction activities is also becoming progressively cleaner every year. If project development occurs in the more distant future, DPM emissions from project construction equipment will be correspondingly less. Because health risks from toxic air contaminants (TAC’s) are cumulative over an assumed 70-year lifespan, measurable off-site public health risk from diesel TAC exposure would occur for only a brief portion of a project lifetime, and only in dilute quantity. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons with the greatest sensitivity to air pollution exposure. Such persons are called “sensitive receptors.” Sensitive population groups include young children, the elderly and the acutely and chronically ill (especially those with cardio-respiratory disease). Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may be occupied for extended periods, and residents may be outdoors when exposure is highest. Schools are similarly considered to be sensitive receptors. The closest existing sensitive use to the proposed project are the single family residences south of the site, beyond the railway right-of- way, accessed via Pitkin Street. Temple City AQ - 16 - IMPACT ANALYSIS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IMPACTS Dust is typically the primary concern during construction of new homes and infrastructure. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions.” Emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). These parameters are not known with any reasonable certainty prior to project development and may change from day to day. Any assignment of specific parameters to an unknown future date is speculative and conjectural. Because of the inherent uncertainty in the predictive factors for estimating fugitive dust generation, regulatory agencies typically use one universal "default" factor based on the area disturbed assuming that all other input parameters into emission rate prediction fall into midrange average values. This assumption may or may not be totally applicable to site-specific conditions on the proposed project site. As noted previously, emissions estimation for project- specific fugitive dust sources is therefore characterized by a considerable degree of imprecision. Average daily PM-10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance average about 10 pounds per acre. This estimate presumes the use of reasonably available control measures (RACMs). The SCAQMD requires the use of best available control measures (BACMs) for fugitive dust from construction activities. With the use of BACMs, fugitive dust emissions can be reduced to 1-2 pounds per day per acre disturbed. Current research in particulate-exposure health suggests that the most adverse effects derive from ultra-small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as sulfates, nitrates or organic material. A national clean air standard for particulate matter of 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (called "PM-2.5") was adopted in 1997. A limited amount of construction activity particulate matter is in the PM-2.5 range. PM-2.5 emissions are estimated to comprise 10-20 percent of PM-10. In addition to fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere semi-indefinitely, construction activities generate many larger particles with shorter atmospheric residence times. This dust is comprised mainly of large diameter inert silicates that are chemically non-reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These fugitive dust particles are therefore more of a potential soiling nuisance as they settle out on parked cars, outdoor furniture or landscape foliage rather than causing any adverse health hazard. The CalEEMod was developed by the SCAQMD and provides a model to calculate both construction emissions and operational emissions from a residential or commercial land use project. It calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The CalEEMod 2013.2.2 computer model was used to calculate emissions from the default construction equipment fleet Temple City AQ - 17 - and schedule anticipated by CalEEMod for a land use consisting of 74 townhomes assuming that the entire project would be built at once. The default equipment fleet and schedule durations assumed by CalEEMod that were used for modeling are shown in Table 5. Activity durations were provided by the project construction engineer and the equipment fleet is the CalEEMod default for the indicated activities for a project of this size. Table 5 Construction Activity Equipment Fleet Phase Name and Duration Equipment Demolition (30 days 12,000 tons debris/haul)* 1 Concrete Saw 1 Dozer 2 Loader/Backhoes Site Preparation (1 day)1 Grader 1 Loader/Backhoe Grading (5 days) 5,000 CY Import 1 Concrete Saw 1 Dozer 2 Loader/Backhoes Construction (100 days) 1 Crane 2 Forklifts 2 Loader/Backhoes Paving (5 days) 4 Mixers 1 Pavers 1 Loader/Backhoe 1 Roller *250,900 sf asphalt, 27,500 sf bulding Utilizing the indicated equipment fleet shown in Tables 5 the following worst case daily construction emissions are calculated by CalEEMod 2013.2.2 and are listed in Table 6. Table 6 Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) Maximal Construction Emissions ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 2014 Unmitigated 6.0 70.8 51.2 0.1 17.0 5.6 Mitigated 6.0 70.8 51.2 0.1 9.1 3.8 2015 Unmitigated 10.1 31.1 23.4 0.0 2.8 2.2 Temple City AQ - 18 - Mitigated 10.1 31.1 23.4 0.0 2.8 2.2 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Peak daily construction activity emissions are estimated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds without the need for added mitigation. The only model-based mitigation measure applied for this project was watering exposed dirt surfaces at least three times per day as required per SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), to minimize the generation of fugitive dust. Construction equipment exhaust contains carcinogenic compounds within the diesel exhaust particulates. The toxicity of diesel exhaust is evaluated relative to a 24-hour per day, 365 days per year, 70-year lifetime exposure. The SCAQMD does not generally require the analysis of construction-related diesel emissions relative to health risk due to the short period for which the majority of diesel exhaust would occur. LSTANALYSIS The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition to the more regional emissions-based thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1-4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD’s Mobile Source Committee in February 2005. Use of an LST analysis for a project is optional. For the proposed project, the primary source of possible LST impact would be during construction. LSTs are applicable for a sensitive receptor where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours such as a residence, hospital or convalescent facility. LST screening tables are available for varying source-receptor distances. For this project the nearest sensitive use would be the residences south of the project site such that a 120 foot source receptor distance was selected for analysis. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute measurably to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs. LST pollutant screening level concentration data is currently published for 1, 2 and 5 acre disturbance sites for varying distances. For this project the most stringent thresholds appropriate for a 1 acre disturbance area were used. The applicable thresholds and emissions are shown in Table 7. Temple City AQ - 19 - Table 7 LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day) LST 1.0 acres/ 120 feet East San Gabriel Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5 LST Threshold 784 100 10 4 Max On-Site Emissions * Demolition Unmitigated 36 50 15 4 Mitigated 36 50 8 3 Grading Unmitigated 27 41 9 6 Mitigated 27 41 5 3 Construction Unmitigated 19 31 2 2 Mitigated 19 31 2 2 Paving Unmitigated 15 25 1 1 Mitigated 15 25 1 1 CalEEMod Output in Appendix *excludes construction commuting, vendor deliveries and emissions associated with haul trucking. LSTs were compared to the maximum daily mitigated construction activities. As seen above, mitigated emissions are below the LST thresholds for construction. LST impacts are less-than- significant. The only mitigation measure applied was the following dust suppression measure: Water exposed surfaces at least 3 times per day for fugitive dust suppression OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Project uses would generate 430 daily trips according to trip generation estimates provided by the project traffic consultant. Operational emissions for the proposed uses were calculated using CalEEMod2013.2 for a project build-out year of 2016. Operational emissions for the proposed residential use assume inclusion of gas hearths rather than wood burning fireplaces and are shown in Table 8. Wood burning fireplaces may not be installed in new construction unless natural gas service is unavailable within reasonable distance. Such service is assumed to be available within the proposed project. Therefore, this measure is a matter of compliance with SCAQMD Rule 445 and not discretionary mitigation. Temple City AQ - 20 - Table 8 Daily Operational Impacts Operational Emissions (lbs/day) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 Area 1.9 0.1 6.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 Energy 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mobile 1.6 4.7 19.5 0.0 3.2 0.9 Total 3.5 5.1 25.8 0.0 3.1 1.0 1.0SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Output in Appendix The project would not cause any operational emissions to exceed their respective SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. Operational emission impacts are judged to be less than significant. MICROSCALE IMPACT ANALYSIS There is a direct relationship between traffic/circulation congestion and CO impacts since exhaust fumes from vehicular traffic are the primary source of CO. CO is a localized gas that dissipates very quickly under normal meteorological conditions. Therefore, CO concentrations decrease substantially as distance from the source (intersection) increases. The highest CO concentrations are typically found in areas directly adjacent to congested roadway intersections. These areas of vehicle congestion have historically had the potential to create pockets of elevated levels of CO which are called “hot spots.” However, with the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the project vicinity have steadily declined as shown based on historical air quality monitoring data provided in Table 3. Micro-scale air quality impacts have traditionally been analyzed in environmental documents where the region was a non-attainment area for carbon monoxide (CO). However, the SCAQMD has demonstrated in the CO attainment redesignation request to EPA that there are no “hot spots” anywhere in Southern California, even at intersections with much higher volumes, much worst congestion, and much higher background CO levels than anywhere in the project area. If the worst-case intersections in the air basin have no “hot spot” potential, any local impacts near the project site will be well below thresholds with an even larger margin of safety. A project is considered to have significant impacts if project-related mobile-source emissions result in an exceedance of the California one-hour and eight-hour CO standards, which are: 1-hour = 20 ppm 8-hour = 9 ppm The existing peak one-hour local CO background level in 2012 in the project area vicinity was 2.7 ppm. The maximum ambient 8-hour CO concentration in 2012 was 2.4 ppm. In order to Temple City AQ - 21 - cause an exceedance of the CO standard a threefold worsening of total automotive traffic would be required. The proposed project is expected to generate 430 daily trips which would add to roadways disperced over roadways with traffic volumes of 14,000 vehicles per day. The impact of these 430 daily trips is further minimized as project traffic is distributed across multiple roadway segments. For a 50/50 split in project-related traffic at the Lower Azusa Road site access point, the incremental increase to on-road traffic will be less than two (2) percent. Project impact would not cause an exceedance of CO standards. RAILROAD PROXIMITY HEALTH IMPACTS Railroad engines are significant emitters of diesel particulate matter (DPM). DPMs are known carcinogens. Health risk studies have been conducted in the vicinity of very large rail yards. No similar studies have been conducted along any single rail line by any state agency such as the California ARB. A variety of health risk assessments (HRAs) have been conducted for placing sensitive receivers such as new homes close to individual tracks. While the health risk in terms of an increased cancer probability is not as great near a given set of tracks as near an entire rail yard, such a risk is not negligible. An HRA conducted at the fence-line of the UPRR tracks in Ontario for the Guasti General Plan calculated an individual excess cancer probability of 265 in a million from 42 daily freight trains passing the site. The study used the standard conservative assumptions that each receptor would stand at a single location at the fence-line for the next 70 years without ever leaving that spot. It also assumed that no improvements in train exhaust emissions would occur for 70 years. Given that the prevailing meteorology in Ontario is very similar to Temple City, it is possible to adjust that finding for local project conditions to obtain a reasonable order of magnitude estimate as follows: Parameter Ontario Temple City Adjustment No. of Freights 42 14 -67% DPM (70 years)0.10 0.03 -70% Age Sensitivity Factor 1.0 1.7 +70% Distance Factor 1.0 0.8 -20% Residential Duration (yrs)70 30 -57% Net Change -94% Adjustment of the Ontario HRA findings to a realistic set of input assumptions for the Temple City project site would reduce the worst-case excess cancer risk from 265 in a million to 15.3 in a million at the property line of the proposed project. This exceeds the recommended SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold of 10 in a million. However, this conclusion includes one more overly conservative assumption that each receiver will remain outside on the front porch for the next 30 years without ever leaving the property or Temple City AQ - 22 - going inside. Interior DPM exposure is less than outside as dust settles on furniture, carpets, drapes, etc. With a reasonable assumption as to the fraction of time the average person spends inside or is completely away from home, rail proximity health risk impact is less-than- significant. To further support this conclusion, prudent protection measures are recommended for minimizing DPM exposure to future project residents both inside and outside their homes. These measures include: - All residential living areas shall be equipped with air filtration systems operating under positive pressure rated at MERV 13 or higher. - Replacement filters shall be made available through the HOA for the project. - The substantial tree canopy shall be established along the southern site boundary to act as a living bio-filter for particulate pollution. Temple City AQ - 23 - CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MITIGATION Construction activities are not anticipated to cause dust emissions to exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. Nevertheless, mitigation through enhanced dust control measures is recommended for use because of the non-attainment status of the air basin. Recommended mitigation includes: Fugitive Dust Control Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive disturbed areas. Prepare and implement a high wind dust control plan. Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas. Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed. Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site Similarly, ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) are calculated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. However, because of the regional non-attainment for photochemical smog, the use of reasonably available control measures for diesel exhaust is recommended. Suggested combustion emissions control includes: Exhaust Emissions Control Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment. Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or cleaner heavy equipment. Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MITIGATION Operational emissions are not anticipated to exceed their respective SCAQMD significance thresholds with application of the following measure: Utilize SCAQMD approved Rule 445 devices rather than wood burning fireplaces for any residential use. Temple City AQ - 24 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS “Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as “global warming.” These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions. California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368, EO S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07. AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to maintain California’s reputation as a “national and international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship.” It will have wide-ranging effects on California businesses and lifestyles as well as far reaching effects on other states and countries. A unique aspect of AB 32, beyond its broad and wide-ranging mandatory provisions and dramatic GHG reductions are the short time frames within which it must be implemented. Major components of the AB 32 include: Require the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions beginning with sources or categories of sources that contribute the most to statewide emissions. Requires immediate “early action” control programs on the most readily controlled GHG sources. Mandates that by 2020, California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. Forces an overall reduction of GHG gases in California by 25-40%, from business as usual, to be achieved by 2020. Must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to reduce toxic air contaminants. Statewide, the framework for developing the implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way. Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, from greater use of renewable energy and from increased structural energy efficiency. Additionally, through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR now called the Climate Action Reserve), Temple City AQ - 25 - general and industry-specific protocols for assessing and reporting GHG emissions have been developed. GHG sources are categorized into direct sources (i.e. company owned) and indirect sources (i.e. not company owned). Direct sources include combustion emissions from on-and off-road mobile sources, and fugitive emissions. Indirect sources include off-site electricity generation and non-company owned mobile sources. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March, 2010. The CEQA Appendix G guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it: Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or, Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated. The process is broken down into quantification of project-related GHG emissions, making a determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility. Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards. CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to “select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate.” The most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CalEEMod, as was used in the ensuing analysis. The significance of those emissions then must be evaluated; the selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration what level of GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The guidelines are clear that they do not support a zero net emissions threshold. If the lead agency does not have sufficient expertise in evaluating GHG impacts, it may rely on thresholds adopted by an agency with greater expertise. On December 5, 2008 the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an Interim quantitative GHG Significance Threshold for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency (e.g., stationary source permit projects, rules, plans, etc.) of 10,000 Metric Tons (MT) CO2 equivalent/year. In September 2010, the Working Group released revisions which recommended a threshold of 3,500 MT CO2e for residential projects. This 3,500 MT/year recommendation has been used as a guideline for this analysis. Some jurisdictions have adopted a numerical annual GHG emissions level as a CEQA threshold of significance. Others have taken the numerical threshold to be an indicator level that signals a requirement for incorporating reasonable and Temple City AQ - 26 - feasible enhanced “green” building practices without formal adoption of an absolute significance standard. PROJECT RELATED GHGEMISSIONS GENERATION Construction Activity GHG Emissions The build-out timetable for this project is assumed to be less than 2 years. During project construction, the CalEEMod2013.2.2 computer model predicts that the construction activities will generate the annual CO2(e) emissions identified in Table 10. Table 10 Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2(e)) CO2(e) Year 2014 467.9 Year 2015 71.4 Overall Total 539.3 Amortized 18.0 *CalEEMod Output provided in appendix SCAQMD GHG emissions policy from construction activities is to amortize emissions over a 30-year lifetime. The amortized level is also provided. GHG impacts from construction are considered individually less-than-significant. Project Operational GHG Emissions The input assumptions for operational GHG emissions calculations, and the GHG conversion from consumption to annual regional CO2(e) emissions are summarized in the CalEEMod2013.2.2 output files found in the appendix of this report. The total operational and annualized construction emissions are identified in Table 11. Table 11 Operational Emissions Consumption Source MT CO2(e) tons/year Area Sources 24.9 Energy Utilization 150.7 Mobile Source 647.6 Solid Waste Generation 15.5 Water Consumption 33.7 Annualized Construction 18.0 Total 890.4 Significance Threshold 3,500 Temple City AQ - 27 - Total project GHG emissions are less than the proposed significance threshold of 3,500 MT. GHG emissions for the proposed project are less than significant. Consistency with GHG Plans, Programs and Policies The City of Temple City is part of a unified regional framework for meeting long-term energy efficiency goals. The Energy Efficiency Plan project, funded by California utility ratepayers and administered by Southern California Edison (SCE) was awarded to the SVGCOG to implement activities to achieve statewide energy efficiency goals. The Plan is intended to provide a roadmap to help Temple City meet AB-32 GHG emissions reduction targets by defining the City's long-term vision and commitment to achieve energy efficiency in the community and in municipal operations. In January, 2013, Temple City completed an Energy Action Plan (EAP). The baseline GHG inventory and future GHG emissions for the City were identified based on activities and energy consumption from community and municipal activities. The following goals were recognized in the report: Greenhouse Gas Emisisons •Achieve a 15% reduction below baseline community-wide GHG emissions levels by 2020. Residential Electricity •Achieve a 10% reduction below baseline residential electricity use by 2020. Nonresidential Electricity •Achieve a 10% reduction below baseline nonresidential electricity use by 2020. Municipal Electricity •Achieve Platinum Level status in SCE’s Energy Leader Partnership by reducing municipal electricity use. To achieve the electricity reduction targets for each electricity sector, the City has identified a set of goals, policies, actions, and projects to be implemented. The report recognized that since Temple City is mostly build out, new development in the future should tend towards higher density housing and mixed use facilities to maximize the use of limited space. For new building construction the EAP identifies following recommended actions: Encourage project applicants to install energy-efficient appliances within new and renovated buildings by highlighting the potential cost savings to project applicants and property owners. Use the City’s model energy efficiency code to support the use of smart-grid and Energy Star appliances in new development. Temple City AQ - 28 - Final architectural building design has not been completed by which to evaluate the above measures of consistency, and, these measures are voluntary. A finding of consistency can therefore not be made at this time. However, use of energy efficient appliances is recommended for use in this project and is expected to be sufficient to meet the energy reduction goal. In meeting the goal, the project would be considered to be consistent with GHG Plans, Programs and Policies with a less-than-significant GHG emissions impact. Temple City AQ - 29 - APPENDIX CalEEMod2013.2.2 Computer Model Output Off-road Equipment - Project Characteristics - Land Use - used actual acreage of 6.22 Construction Phase - Demo: 30 days, Grading: 20 days, Construction: 230 days, Paving: 40 days Grading - Demolition - Trips and VMT - Vehicle Trips - trips per project traffic report Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Area Mitigation - South Coast Air Basin, Summer 9230 Lower Azusa Road Temple City 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Condo/Townhouse 74.00 Dwelling Unit 6.22 74,000.00 212 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 9 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 31 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2016Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 630.89 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 1 of 23 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 60.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.63 6.22 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 41.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 5.81 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 5.81 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.81 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 2 of 23 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2014 5.9907 70.8168 51.1594 0.0860 14.0407 2.9371 16.9778 3.4217 2.7364 5.6179 0.0000 8,873.132 7 8,873.132 7 1.1750 0.0000 8,897.807 0 2015 10.1039 31.1220 23.4082 0.0361 0.6424 2.1355 2.7779 0.1713 2.0077 2.1790 0.0000 3,519.052 1 3,519.052 1 0.7113 0.0000 3,533.990 0 Total 16.0946 101.9387 74.5677 0.1221 14.6831 5.0727 19.7558 3.5931 4.7441 7.7969 0.0000 12,392.18 48 12,392.18 48 1.8863 0.0000 12,431.79 70 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2014 5.9907 70.8168 51.1594 0.0860 6.2087 2.9371 9.1458 1.3676 2.7364 3.8221 0.0000 8,873.132 7 8,873.132 7 1.1750 0.0000 8,897.807 0 2015 10.1039 31.1220 23.4082 0.0361 0.6424 2.1355 2.7779 0.1713 2.0077 2.1790 0.0000 3,519.052 0 3,519.052 0 0.7113 0.0000 3,533.990 0 Total 16.0946 101.9387 74.5677 0.1221 6.8511 5.0727 11.9237 1.5389 4.7441 6.0011 0.0000 12,392.18 48 12,392.18 48 1.8863 0.0000 12,431.79 70 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.34 0.00 39.64 57.17 0.00 23.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 3 of 23 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 21.2094 0.5644 43.3857 0.0595 5.6861 5.6861 5.6852 5.6852 693.1520 1,342.992 9 2,036.144 8 2.0783 0.0471 2,094.373 8 Energy 0.0315 0.2692 0.1145 1.7200e- 003 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 343.6088 343.6088 6.5900e- 003 6.3000e- 003 345.6999 Mobile 1.6427 4.7328 19.5311 0.0464 3.1148 0.0685 3.1832 0.8322 0.0629 0.8951 4,073.926 7 4,073.926 7 0.1610 4,077.307 7 Total 22.8836 5.5664 63.0313 0.1076 3.1148 5.7763 8.8911 0.8322 5.7699 6.6021 693.1520 5,760.528 3 6,453.680 3 2.2459 0.0534 6,517.381 5 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 1.9480 0.0724 6.1972 3.2000e- 004 0.1227 0.1227 0.1218 0.1218 0.0000 1,421.345 8 1,421.345 8 0.0382 0.0259 1,430.164 2 Energy 0.0315 0.2692 0.1145 1.7200e- 003 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 343.6088 343.6088 6.5900e- 003 6.3000e- 003 345.6999 Mobile 1.6427 4.7328 19.5311 0.0464 3.1148 0.0685 3.1832 0.8322 0.0629 0.8951 4,073.926 7 4,073.926 7 0.1610 4,077.307 7 Total 3.6222 5.0744 25.8429 0.0484 3.1148 0.2129 3.3277 0.8322 0.2065 1.0386 0.0000 5,838.881 3 5,838.881 3 0.2058 0.0322 5,853.171 9 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 4 of 23 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2014 1/28/2014 5 20 2 Grading Grading 1/29/2014 2/25/2014 5 20 3 Building Construction Building Construction 2/26/2014 1/13/2015 5 230 4 Paving Paving 1/14/2015 3/10/2015 5 40 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/11/2015 6/2/2015 5 60 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 84.17 8.84 59.00 54.99 0.00 96.31 62.57 0.00 96.42 84.27 100.00 -1.36 9.53 90.84 39.72 10.19 Residential Indoor: 149,850; Residential Outdoor: 49,950; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 5 of 23 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 226 0.29 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 162 0.38 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 162 0.38 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 125 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 130 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 255 0.40 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 1,187.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 41.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 53.00 8.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 11.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 6 of 23 3.2 Demolition - 2014 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 12.8394 0.0000 12.8394 1.9440 0.0000 1.9440 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.5962 49.5429 36.2873 0.0399 2.5270 2.5270 2.3593 2.3593 4,164.085 8 4,164.085 8 1.1253 4,187.716 4 Total 4.5962 49.5429 36.2873 0.0399 12.8394 2.5270 15.3664 1.9440 2.3593 4.3033 4,164.085 8 4,164.085 8 1.1253 4,187.716 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 1.3175 21.1774 13.6809 0.0439 1.0336 0.4085 1.4421 0.2830 0.3757 0.6588 4,518.113 0 4,518.113 0 0.0388 4,518.928 7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0770 0.0965 1.1912 2.1200e- 003 0.1677 1.5800e- 003 0.1693 0.0445 1.4400e- 003 0.0459 190.9339 190.9339 0.0109 191.1619 Total 1.3945 21.2738 14.8721 0.0461 1.2013 0.4101 1.6114 0.3275 0.3772 0.7047 4,709.046 9 4,709.046 9 0.0497 4,710.090 6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 7 of 23 3.2 Demolition - 2014 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 5.0074 0.0000 5.0074 0.7582 0.0000 0.7582 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.5962 49.5429 36.2873 0.0399 2.5270 2.5270 2.3593 2.3593 0.0000 4,164.085 8 4,164.085 8 1.1253 4,187.716 4 Total 4.5962 49.5429 36.2873 0.0399 5.0074 2.5270 7.5344 0.7582 2.3593 3.1174 0.0000 4,164.085 8 4,164.085 8 1.1253 4,187.716 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 1.3175 21.1774 13.6809 0.0439 1.0336 0.4085 1.4421 0.2830 0.3757 0.6588 4,518.113 0 4,518.113 0 0.0388 4,518.928 7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0770 0.0965 1.1912 2.1200e- 003 0.1677 1.5800e- 003 0.1693 0.0445 1.4400e- 003 0.0459 190.9339 190.9339 0.0109 191.1619 Total 1.3945 21.2738 14.8721 0.0461 1.2013 0.4101 1.6114 0.3275 0.3772 0.7047 4,709.046 9 4,709.046 9 0.0497 4,710.090 6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 8 of 23 3.3 Grading - 2014 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8669 41.0997 26.7538 0.0298 2.3714 2.3714 2.1817 2.1817 3,162.426 6 3,162.426 6 0.9345 3,182.051 8 Total 3.8669 41.0997 26.7538 0.0298 6.5523 2.3714 8.9238 3.3675 2.1817 5.5492 3,162.426 6 3,162.426 6 0.9345 3,182.051 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0455 0.7315 0.4726 1.5200e- 003 0.0357 0.0141 0.0498 9.7800e- 003 0.0130 0.0228 156.0595 156.0595 1.3400e- 003 156.0877 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0770 0.0965 1.1912 2.1200e- 003 0.1677 1.5800e- 003 0.1693 0.0445 1.4400e- 003 0.0459 190.9339 190.9339 0.0109 191.1619 Total 0.1225 0.8279 1.6638 3.6400e- 003 0.2034 0.0157 0.2191 0.0543 0.0144 0.0687 346.9934 346.9934 0.0122 347.2496 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 9 of 23 3.3 Grading - 2014 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.5554 0.0000 2.5554 1.3133 0.0000 1.3133 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8669 41.0997 26.7538 0.0298 2.3714 2.3714 2.1817 2.1817 0.0000 3,162.426 6 3,162.426 6 0.9345 3,182.051 8 Total 3.8669 41.0997 26.7538 0.0298 2.5554 2.3714 4.9269 1.3133 2.1817 3.4951 0.0000 3,162.426 6 3,162.426 6 0.9345 3,182.051 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0455 0.7315 0.4726 1.5200e- 003 0.0357 0.0141 0.0498 9.7800e- 003 0.0130 0.0228 156.0595 156.0595 1.3400e- 003 156.0877 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0770 0.0965 1.1912 2.1200e- 003 0.1677 1.5800e- 003 0.1693 0.0445 1.4400e- 003 0.0459 190.9339 190.9339 0.0109 191.1619 Total 0.1225 0.8279 1.6638 3.6400e- 003 0.2034 0.0157 0.2191 0.0543 0.0144 0.0687 346.9934 346.9934 0.0122 347.2496 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 10 of 23 3.4 Building Construction - 2014 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.8680 31.2537 18.9298 0.0268 2.2280 2.2280 2.0973 2.0973 2,709.196 9 2,709.196 9 0.6889 2,723.663 0 Total 3.8680 31.2537 18.9298 0.0268 2.2280 2.2280 2.0973 2.0973 2,709.196 9 2,709.196 9 0.6889 2,723.663 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0877 0.9005 0.9602 1.7500e- 003 0.0500 0.0177 0.0677 0.0142 0.0163 0.0305 178.4693 178.4693 1.5800e- 003 178.5025 Worker 0.2721 0.3408 4.2090 7.5100e- 003 0.5924 5.5900e- 003 0.5980 0.1571 5.1100e- 003 0.1622 674.6330 674.6330 0.0384 675.4388 Total 0.3597 1.2412 5.1693 9.2600e- 003 0.6424 0.0233 0.6657 0.1713 0.0214 0.1927 853.1024 853.1024 0.0400 853.9412 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 11 of 23 3.4 Building Construction - 2014 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.8680 31.2537 18.9298 0.0268 2.2280 2.2280 2.0973 2.0973 0.0000 2,709.196 9 2,709.196 9 0.6889 2,723.663 0 Total 3.8680 31.2537 18.9298 0.0268 2.2280 2.2280 2.0973 2.0973 0.0000 2,709.196 9 2,709.196 9 0.6889 2,723.663 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0877 0.9005 0.9602 1.7500e- 003 0.0500 0.0177 0.0677 0.0142 0.0163 0.0305 178.4693 178.4693 1.5800e- 003 178.5025 Worker 0.2721 0.3408 4.2090 7.5100e- 003 0.5924 5.5900e- 003 0.5980 0.1571 5.1100e- 003 0.1622 674.6330 674.6330 0.0384 675.4388 Total 0.3597 1.2412 5.1693 9.2600e- 003 0.6424 0.0233 0.6657 0.1713 0.0214 0.1927 853.1024 853.1024 0.0400 853.9412 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 12 of 23 3.4 Building Construction - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.6591 30.0299 18.7446 0.0268 2.1167 2.1167 1.9904 1.9904 2,689.577 1 2,689.577 1 0.6748 2,703.748 3 Total 3.6591 30.0299 18.7446 0.0268 2.1167 2.1167 1.9904 1.9904 2,689.577 1 2,689.577 1 0.6748 2,703.748 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0756 0.7861 0.8672 1.7400e- 003 0.0500 0.0136 0.0636 0.0142 0.0125 0.0267 176.4981 176.4981 1.3900e- 003 176.5272 Worker 0.2444 0.3059 3.7965 7.5100e- 003 0.5924 5.2100e- 003 0.5976 0.1571 4.7800e- 003 0.1619 652.9768 652.9768 0.0351 653.7144 Total 0.3200 1.0920 4.6637 9.2500e- 003 0.6424 0.0188 0.6612 0.1713 0.0173 0.1886 829.4749 829.4749 0.0365 830.2417 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 13 of 23 3.4 Building Construction - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.6591 30.0299 18.7446 0.0268 2.1167 2.1167 1.9904 1.9904 0.0000 2,689.577 1 2,689.577 1 0.6748 2,703.748 3 Total 3.6591 30.0299 18.7446 0.0268 2.1167 2.1167 1.9904 1.9904 0.0000 2,689.577 1 2,689.577 1 0.6748 2,703.748 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0756 0.7861 0.8672 1.7400e- 003 0.0500 0.0136 0.0636 0.0142 0.0125 0.0267 176.4981 176.4981 1.3900e- 003 176.5272 Worker 0.2444 0.3059 3.7965 7.5100e- 003 0.5924 5.2100e- 003 0.5976 0.1571 4.7800e- 003 0.1619 652.9768 652.9768 0.0351 653.7144 Total 0.3200 1.0920 4.6637 9.2500e- 003 0.6424 0.0188 0.6612 0.1713 0.0173 0.1886 829.4749 829.4749 0.0365 830.2417 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 14 of 23 3.5 Paving - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 2.3172 25.1758 14.9781 0.0223 1.4148 1.4148 1.3016 1.3016 2,339.898 4 2,339.898 4 0.6986 2,354.568 1 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.3172 25.1758 14.9781 0.0223 1.4148 1.4148 1.3016 1.3016 2,339.898 4 2,339.898 4 0.6986 2,354.568 1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0692 0.0866 1.0745 2.1300e- 003 0.1677 1.4800e- 003 0.1691 0.0445 1.3500e- 003 0.0458 184.8048 184.8048 9.9400e- 003 185.0135 Total 0.0692 0.0866 1.0745 2.1300e- 003 0.1677 1.4800e- 003 0.1691 0.0445 1.3500e- 003 0.0458 184.8048 184.8048 9.9400e- 003 185.0135 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 15 of 23 3.5 Paving - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 2.3172 25.1758 14.9781 0.0223 1.4148 1.4148 1.3016 1.3016 0.0000 2,339.898 4 2,339.898 4 0.6986 2,354.568 1 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.3172 25.1758 14.9781 0.0223 1.4148 1.4148 1.3016 1.3016 0.0000 2,339.898 4 2,339.898 4 0.6986 2,354.568 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0692 0.0866 1.0745 2.1300e- 003 0.1677 1.4800e- 003 0.1691 0.0445 1.3500e- 003 0.0458 184.8048 184.8048 9.9400e- 003 185.0135 Total 0.0692 0.0866 1.0745 2.1300e- 003 0.1677 1.4800e- 003 0.1691 0.0445 1.3500e- 003 0.0458 184.8048 184.8048 9.9400e- 003 185.0135 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 16 of 23 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 9.6466 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.4066 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e- 003 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177 Total 10.0532 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e- 003 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0507 0.0635 0.7880 1.5600e- 003 0.1230 1.0800e- 003 0.1240 0.0326 9.9000e- 004 0.0336 135.5235 135.5235 7.2900e- 003 135.6766 Total 0.0507 0.0635 0.7880 1.5600e- 003 0.1230 1.0800e- 003 0.1240 0.0326 9.9000e- 004 0.0336 135.5235 135.5235 7.2900e- 003 135.6766 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 17 of 23 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 9.6466 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.4066 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e- 003 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177 Total 10.0532 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e- 003 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0507 0.0635 0.7880 1.5600e- 003 0.1230 1.0800e- 003 0.1240 0.0326 9.9000e- 004 0.0336 135.5235 135.5235 7.2900e- 003 135.6766 Total 0.0507 0.0635 0.7880 1.5600e- 003 0.1230 1.0800e- 003 0.1240 0.0326 9.9000e- 004 0.0336 135.5235 135.5235 7.2900e- 003 135.6766 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 18 of 23 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 1.6427 4.7328 19.5311 0.0464 3.1148 0.0685 3.1832 0.8322 0.0629 0.8951 4,073.926 7 4,073.926 7 0.1610 4,077.307 7 Unmitigated 1.6427 4.7328 19.5311 0.0464 3.1148 0.0685 3.1832 0.8322 0.0629 0.8951 4,073.926 7 4,073.926 7 0.1610 4,077.307 7 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Condo/Townhouse 429.94 429.94 429.94 1,469,170 1,469,170 Total 429.94 429.94 429.94 1,469,170 1,469,170 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Condo/Townhouse 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 5.0 Energy Detail4.4 Fleet Mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.514315 0.060290 0.180146 0.139458 0.042007 0.006636 0.015782 0.029894 0.001929 0.002512 0.004343 0.000595 0.002093 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 19 of 23 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0315 0.2692 0.1145 1.7200e- 003 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 343.6088 343.6088 6.5900e- 003 6.3000e- 003 345.6999 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0315 0.2692 0.1145 1.7200e- 003 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 343.6088 343.6088 6.5900e- 003 6.3000e- 003 345.6999 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Condo/ Townhouse 2920.67 0.0315 0.2692 0.1145 1.7200e- 003 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 343.6088 343.6088 6.5900e- 003 6.3000e- 003 345.6999 Total 0.0315 0.2692 0.1145 1.7200e- 003 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 343.6088 343.6088 6.5900e- 003 6.3000e- 003 345.6999 Unmitigated 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 20 of 23 Use only Natural Gas Hearths 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 1.9480 0.0724 6.1972 3.2000e- 004 0.1227 0.1227 0.1218 0.1218 0.0000 1,421.345 8 1,421.345 8 0.0382 0.0259 1,430.164 2 Unmitigated 21.2094 0.5644 43.3857 0.0595 5.6861 5.6861 5.6852 5.6852 693.1520 1,342.992 9 2,036.144 8 2.0783 0.0471 2,094.373 8 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Condo/ Townhouse 2.92067 0.0315 0.2692 0.1145 1.7200e- 003 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 343.6088 343.6088 6.5900e- 003 6.3000e- 003 345.6999 Total 0.0315 0.2692 0.1145 1.7200e- 003 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 343.6088 343.6088 6.5900e- 003 6.3000e- 003 345.6999 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 21 of 23 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Consumer Products 1.4652 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 19.3907 0.4920 37.1955 0.0592 5.6527 5.6527 5.6519 5.6519 693.1520 1,332.000 0 2,025.152 0 2.0671 0.0471 2,083.145 7 Landscaping 0.1949 0.0724 6.1902 3.2000e- 004 0.0334 0.0334 0.0334 0.0334 10.9929 10.9929 0.0112 11.2281 Architectural Coating 0.1586 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 21.2094 0.5644 43.3857 0.0595 5.6861 5.6861 5.6852 5.6852 693.1520 1,342.992 9 2,036.144 8 2.0783 0.0471 2,094.373 8 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 22 of 23 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 10.0 Vegetation 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Consumer Products 1.4652 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.1293 1.0000e- 005 7.0500e- 003 0.0000 0.0893 0.0893 0.0884 0.0884 0.0000 1,410.352 9 1,410.352 9 0.0270 0.0259 1,418.936 1 Landscaping 0.1949 0.0724 6.1902 3.2000e- 004 0.0334 0.0334 0.0334 0.0334 10.9929 10.9929 0.0112 11.2281 Architectural Coating 0.1586 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.9480 0.0724 6.1972 3.2000e- 004 0.1227 0.1227 0.1218 0.1218 0.0000 1,421.345 8 1,421.345 8 0.0382 0.0259 1,430.164 2 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:15 PMPage 23 of 23 Off-road Equipment - Project Characteristics - Land Use - used actual acreage of 6.22 Construction Phase - Demo: 30 days, Grading: 20 days, Construction: 230 days, Paving: 40 days Grading - Demolition - Trips and VMT - Vehicle Trips - trips per project traffic report Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Area Mitigation - South Coast Air Basin, Annual 9230 Lower Azusa Road Temple City 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Condo/Townhouse 74.00 Dwelling Unit 6.22 74,000.00 212 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 9 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 31 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2016Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 630.89 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 1 of 28 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 60.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.63 6.22 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 41.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 5.81 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 5.81 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.81 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 2 of 28 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2014 0.5672 4.7399 3.4638 5.1400e- 003 0.2774 0.3020 0.5794 0.0755 0.2835 0.3590 0.0000 465.9650 465.9650 0.0923 0.0000 467.9035 2015 0.3686 0.7251 0.5044 7.8000e- 004 9.7500e- 003 0.0446 0.0543 2.5900e- 003 0.0418 0.0443 0.0000 71.0588 71.0588 0.0170 0.0000 71.4148 Total 0.9359 5.4650 3.9682 5.9200e- 003 0.2872 0.3466 0.6338 0.0781 0.3252 0.4033 0.0000 537.0238 537.0238 0.1093 0.0000 539.3183 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2014 0.5672 4.7398 3.4638 5.1400e- 003 0.1591 0.3020 0.4612 0.0431 0.2835 0.3265 0.0000 465.9646 465.9646 0.0923 0.0000 467.9031 2015 0.3686 0.7251 0.5044 7.8000e- 004 9.7500e- 003 0.0446 0.0543 2.5900e- 003 0.0418 0.0443 0.0000 71.0587 71.0587 0.0170 0.0000 71.4147 Total 0.9359 5.4650 3.9682 5.9200e- 003 0.1689 0.3466 0.5155 0.0457 0.3252 0.3709 0.0000 537.0233 537.0233 0.1093 0.0000 539.3178 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.19 0.00 18.66 41.50 0.00 8.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 3 of 28 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.5631 0.0152 1.2387 7.8000e- 004 0.0748 0.0748 0.0748 0.0748 7.8602 16.3512 24.2114 0.0247 5.3000e- 004 24.8957 Energy 5.7500e- 003 0.0491 0.0209 3.1000e- 004 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 0.0000 150.0193 150.0193 5.3700e- 003 1.9300e- 003 150.7300 Mobile 0.2940 0.9247 3.5171 8.1100e- 003 0.5566 0.0125 0.5690 0.1489 0.0115 0.1604 0.0000 647.0306 647.0306 0.0266 0.0000 647.5883 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.9098 0.0000 6.9098 0.4084 0.0000 15.4853 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5296 27.6292 29.1588 0.1584 3.9700e- 003 33.7161 Total 0.8628 0.9890 4.7767 9.2000e- 003 0.5566 0.0913 0.6478 0.1489 0.0903 0.2392 16.2996 841.0303 857.3299 0.6234 6.4300e- 003 872.4154 Unmitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 4 of 28 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.3223 9.0500e- 003 0.7739 4.0000e- 005 5.2900e- 003 5.2900e- 003 5.2800e- 003 5.2800e- 003 0.0000 17.2397 17.2397 1.5800e- 003 2.9000e- 004 17.3637 Energy 5.7500e- 003 0.0491 0.0209 3.1000e- 004 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 0.0000 150.0193 150.0193 5.3700e- 003 1.9300e- 003 150.7300 Mobile 0.2940 0.9247 3.5171 8.1100e- 003 0.5566 0.0125 0.5690 0.1489 0.0115 0.1604 0.0000 647.0306 647.0306 0.0266 0.0000 647.5883 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.9098 0.0000 6.9098 0.4084 0.0000 15.4853 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5296 27.6292 29.1588 0.1584 3.9700e- 003 33.7136 Total 0.6220 0.9829 4.3119 8.4600e- 003 0.5566 0.0217 0.5783 0.1489 0.0207 0.1696 8.4394 841.9188 850.3582 0.6002 6.1900e- 003 864.8810 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 27.91 0.62 9.73 8.04 0.00 76.20 10.73 0.00 77.05 29.08 48.22 -0.11 0.81 3.72 3.73 0.86 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 5 of 28 Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2014 1/28/2014 5 20 2 Grading Grading 1/29/2014 2/25/2014 5 20 3 Building Construction Building Construction 2/26/2014 1/13/2015 5 230 4 Paving Paving 1/14/2015 3/10/2015 5 40 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/11/2015 6/2/2015 5 60 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 149,850; Residential Outdoor: 49,950; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 6 of 28 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 226 0.29 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 162 0.38 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 162 0.38 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 125 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 130 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 255 0.40 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 1,187.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 41.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 53.00 8.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 11.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 7 of 28 3.2 Demolition - 2014 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1284 0.0000 0.1284 0.0194 0.0000 0.0194 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0460 0.4954 0.3629 4.0000e- 004 0.0253 0.0253 0.0236 0.0236 0.0000 37.7760 37.7760 0.0102 0.0000 37.9903 Total 0.0460 0.4954 0.3629 4.0000e- 004 0.1284 0.0253 0.1537 0.0194 0.0236 0.0430 0.0000 37.7760 37.7760 0.0102 0.0000 37.9903 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0138 0.2232 0.1511 4.4000e- 004 0.0102 4.0900e- 003 0.0143 2.7900e- 003 3.7600e- 003 6.5500e- 003 0.0000 40.9470 40.9470 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 40.9544 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.5000e- 004 1.0900e- 003 0.0113 2.0000e- 005 1.6500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.6600e- 003 4.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.6502 1.6502 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.6523 Total 0.0145 0.2243 0.1624 4.6000e- 004 0.0118 4.1100e- 003 0.0159 3.2300e- 003 3.7700e- 003 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 42.5972 42.5972 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 42.6067 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 8 of 28 3.2 Demolition - 2014 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0501 0.0000 0.0501 7.5800e- 003 0.0000 7.5800e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0460 0.4954 0.3629 4.0000e- 004 0.0253 0.0253 0.0236 0.0236 0.0000 37.7759 37.7759 0.0102 0.0000 37.9903 Total 0.0460 0.4954 0.3629 4.0000e- 004 0.0501 0.0253 0.0753 7.5800e- 003 0.0236 0.0312 0.0000 37.7759 37.7759 0.0102 0.0000 37.9903 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0138 0.2232 0.1511 4.4000e- 004 0.0102 4.0900e- 003 0.0143 2.7900e- 003 3.7600e- 003 6.5500e- 003 0.0000 40.9470 40.9470 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 40.9544 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.5000e- 004 1.0900e- 003 0.0113 2.0000e- 005 1.6500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.6600e- 003 4.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.6502 1.6502 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.6523 Total 0.0145 0.2243 0.1624 4.6000e- 004 0.0118 4.1100e- 003 0.0159 3.2300e- 003 3.7700e- 003 7.0000e- 003 0.0000 42.5972 42.5972 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 42.6067 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 9 of 28 3.3 Grading - 2014 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0655 0.0000 0.0655 0.0337 0.0000 0.0337 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0387 0.4110 0.2675 3.0000e- 004 0.0237 0.0237 0.0218 0.0218 0.0000 28.6891 28.6891 8.4800e- 003 0.0000 28.8671 Total 0.0387 0.4110 0.2675 3.0000e- 004 0.0655 0.0237 0.0892 0.0337 0.0218 0.0555 0.0000 28.6891 28.6891 8.4800e- 003 0.0000 28.8671 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4.8000e- 004 7.7100e- 003 5.2200e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.4143 1.4143 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4146 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.5000e- 004 1.0900e- 003 0.0113 2.0000e- 005 1.6500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.6600e- 003 4.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.6502 1.6502 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.6523 Total 1.2300e- 003 8.8000e- 003 0.0165 4.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 003 1.6000e- 004 2.1500e- 003 5.4000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 6.8000e- 004 0.0000 3.0645 3.0645 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.0669 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 10 of 28 3.3 Grading - 2014 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0256 0.0000 0.0256 0.0131 0.0000 0.0131 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0387 0.4110 0.2675 3.0000e- 004 0.0237 0.0237 0.0218 0.0218 0.0000 28.6890 28.6890 8.4800e- 003 0.0000 28.8671 Total 0.0387 0.4110 0.2675 3.0000e- 004 0.0256 0.0237 0.0493 0.0131 0.0218 0.0350 0.0000 28.6890 28.6890 8.4800e- 003 0.0000 28.8671 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4.8000e- 004 7.7100e- 003 5.2200e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.4143 1.4143 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4146 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.5000e- 004 1.0900e- 003 0.0113 2.0000e- 005 1.6500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.6600e- 003 4.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.6502 1.6502 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.6523 Total 1.2300e- 003 8.8000e- 003 0.0165 4.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 003 1.6000e- 004 2.1500e- 003 5.4000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 6.8000e- 004 0.0000 3.0645 3.0645 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.0669 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 11 of 28 3.4 Building Construction - 2014 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.4274 3.4535 2.0918 2.9600e- 003 0.2462 0.2462 0.2318 0.2318 0.0000 271.5805 271.5805 0.0691 0.0000 273.0306 Total 0.4274 3.4535 2.0918 2.9600e- 003 0.2462 0.2462 0.2318 0.2318 0.0000 271.5805 271.5805 0.0691 0.0000 273.0306 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0103 0.1042 0.1212 1.9000e- 004 5.4400e- 003 1.9700e- 003 7.4000e- 003 1.5500e- 003 1.8100e- 003 3.3600e- 003 0.0000 17.8283 17.8283 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 17.8317 Worker 0.0291 0.0426 0.4415 7.9000e- 004 0.0643 6.2000e- 004 0.0649 0.0171 5.6000e- 004 0.0176 0.0000 64.4295 64.4295 3.8500e- 003 0.0000 64.5102 Total 0.0395 0.1468 0.5628 9.8000e- 004 0.0697 2.5900e- 003 0.0723 0.0186 2.3700e- 003 0.0210 0.0000 82.2578 82.2578 4.0100e- 003 0.0000 82.3419 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 12 of 28 3.4 Building Construction - 2014 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.4274 3.4535 2.0917 2.9600e- 003 0.2462 0.2462 0.2318 0.2318 0.0000 271.5802 271.5802 0.0691 0.0000 273.0303 Total 0.4274 3.4535 2.0917 2.9600e- 003 0.2462 0.2462 0.2318 0.2318 0.0000 271.5802 271.5802 0.0691 0.0000 273.0303 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0103 0.1042 0.1212 1.9000e- 004 5.4400e- 003 1.9700e- 003 7.4000e- 003 1.5500e- 003 1.8100e- 003 3.3600e- 003 0.0000 17.8283 17.8283 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 17.8317 Worker 0.0291 0.0426 0.4415 7.9000e- 004 0.0643 6.2000e- 004 0.0649 0.0171 5.6000e- 004 0.0176 0.0000 64.4295 64.4295 3.8500e- 003 0.0000 64.5102 Total 0.0395 0.1468 0.5628 9.8000e- 004 0.0697 2.5900e- 003 0.0723 0.0186 2.3700e- 003 0.0210 0.0000 82.2578 82.2578 4.0100e- 003 0.0000 82.3419 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 13 of 28 3.4 Building Construction - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0165 0.1351 0.0844 1.2000e- 004 9.5300e- 003 9.5300e- 003 8.9600e- 003 8.9600e- 003 0.0000 10.9797 10.9797 2.7500e- 003 0.0000 11.0376 Total 0.0165 0.1351 0.0844 1.2000e- 004 9.5300e- 003 9.5300e- 003 8.9600e- 003 8.9600e- 003 0.0000 10.9797 10.9797 2.7500e- 003 0.0000 11.0376 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.6000e- 004 3.7000e- 003 4.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 2.8000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.7180 0.7180 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7181 Worker 1.0600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0162 3.0000e- 005 2.6200e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.6400e- 003 6.9000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5393 2.5393 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.5423 Total 1.4200e- 003 5.2600e- 003 0.0207 4.0000e- 005 2.8400e- 003 8.0000e- 005 2.9200e- 003 7.5000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 8.4000e- 004 0.0000 3.2573 3.2573 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.2604 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 14 of 28 3.4 Building Construction - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0165 0.1351 0.0844 1.2000e- 004 9.5300e- 003 9.5300e- 003 8.9600e- 003 8.9600e- 003 0.0000 10.9797 10.9797 2.7500e- 003 0.0000 11.0376 Total 0.0165 0.1351 0.0844 1.2000e- 004 9.5300e- 003 9.5300e- 003 8.9600e- 003 8.9600e- 003 0.0000 10.9797 10.9797 2.7500e- 003 0.0000 11.0376 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.6000e- 004 3.7000e- 003 4.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 2.8000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.7180 0.7180 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7181 Worker 1.0600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0162 3.0000e- 005 2.6200e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.6400e- 003 6.9000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5393 2.5393 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.5423 Total 1.4200e- 003 5.2600e- 003 0.0207 4.0000e- 005 2.8400e- 003 8.0000e- 005 2.9200e- 003 7.5000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 8.4000e- 004 0.0000 3.2573 3.2573 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.2604 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 15 of 28 3.5 Paving - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0463 0.5035 0.2996 4.5000e- 004 0.0283 0.0283 0.0260 0.0260 0.0000 42.4544 42.4544 0.0127 0.0000 42.7206 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0463 0.5035 0.2996 4.5000e- 004 0.0283 0.0283 0.0260 0.0260 0.0000 42.4544 42.4544 0.0127 0.0000 42.7206 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3400e- 003 1.9600e- 003 0.0204 4.0000e- 005 3.2900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.3200e- 003 8.7000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.1941 3.1941 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 3.1979 Total 1.3400e- 003 1.9600e- 003 0.0204 4.0000e- 005 3.2900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.3200e- 003 8.7000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.1941 3.1941 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 3.1979 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 16 of 28 3.5 Paving - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0463 0.5035 0.2996 4.5000e- 004 0.0283 0.0283 0.0260 0.0260 0.0000 42.4544 42.4544 0.0127 0.0000 42.7205 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0463 0.5035 0.2996 4.5000e- 004 0.0283 0.0283 0.0260 0.0260 0.0000 42.4544 42.4544 0.0127 0.0000 42.7205 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3400e- 003 1.9600e- 003 0.0204 4.0000e- 005 3.2900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.3200e- 003 8.7000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.1941 3.1941 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 3.1979 Total 1.3400e- 003 1.9600e- 003 0.0204 4.0000e- 005 3.2900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.3200e- 003 8.7000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.1941 3.1941 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 3.1979 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 17 of 28 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.2894 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0122 0.0771 0.0571 9.0000e- 005 6.6300e- 003 6.6300e- 003 6.6300e- 003 6.6300e- 003 0.0000 7.6598 7.6598 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 7.6807 Total 0.3016 0.0771 0.0571 9.0000e- 005 6.6300e- 003 6.6300e- 003 6.6300e- 003 6.6300e- 003 0.0000 7.6598 7.6598 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 7.6807 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.4700e- 003 2.1500e- 003 0.0224 4.0000e- 005 3.6200e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.6500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 9.9000e- 004 0.0000 3.5135 3.5135 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.5177 Total 1.4700e- 003 2.1500e- 003 0.0224 4.0000e- 005 3.6200e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.6500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 9.9000e- 004 0.0000 3.5135 3.5135 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.5177 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 18 of 28 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2015 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.2894 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0122 0.0771 0.0571 9.0000e- 005 6.6300e- 003 6.6300e- 003 6.6300e- 003 6.6300e- 003 0.0000 7.6598 7.6598 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 7.6807 Total 0.3016 0.0771 0.0571 9.0000e- 005 6.6300e- 003 6.6300e- 003 6.6300e- 003 6.6300e- 003 0.0000 7.6598 7.6598 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 7.6807 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.4700e- 003 2.1500e- 003 0.0224 4.0000e- 005 3.6200e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.6500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 9.9000e- 004 0.0000 3.5135 3.5135 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.5177 Total 1.4700e- 003 2.1500e- 003 0.0224 4.0000e- 005 3.6200e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.6500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 9.9000e- 004 0.0000 3.5135 3.5135 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.5177 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 19 of 28 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.2940 0.9247 3.5171 8.1100e- 003 0.5566 0.0125 0.5690 0.1489 0.0115 0.1604 0.0000 647.0306 647.0306 0.0266 0.0000 647.5883 Unmitigated 0.2940 0.9247 3.5171 8.1100e- 003 0.5566 0.0125 0.5690 0.1489 0.0115 0.1604 0.0000 647.0306 647.0306 0.0266 0.0000 647.5883 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Condo/Townhouse 429.94 429.94 429.94 1,469,170 1,469,170 Total 429.94 429.94 429.94 1,469,170 1,469,170 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Condo/Townhouse 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 5.0 Energy Detail4.4 Fleet Mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.514315 0.060290 0.180146 0.139458 0.042007 0.006636 0.015782 0.029894 0.001929 0.002512 0.004343 0.000595 0.002093 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 20 of 28 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 93.1311 93.1311 4.2800e- 003 8.9000e- 004 93.4955 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 93.1311 93.1311 4.2800e- 003 8.9000e- 004 93.4955 NaturalGas Mitigated 5.7500e- 003 0.0491 0.0209 3.1000e- 004 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 0.0000 56.8883 56.8883 1.0900e- 003 1.0400e- 003 57.2345 NaturalGas Unmitigated 5.7500e- 003 0.0491 0.0209 3.1000e- 004 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 0.0000 56.8883 56.8883 1.0900e- 003 1.0400e- 003 57.2345 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Condo/ Townhouse 1.06605e +006 5.7500e- 003 0.0491 0.0209 3.1000e- 004 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 0.0000 56.8883 56.8883 1.0900e- 003 1.0400e- 003 57.2345 Total 5.7500e- 003 0.0491 0.0209 3.1000e- 004 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 0.0000 56.8883 56.8883 1.0900e- 003 1.0400e- 003 57.2345 Unmitigated 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 21 of 28 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Condo/ Townhouse 1.06605e +006 5.7500e- 003 0.0491 0.0209 3.1000e- 004 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 0.0000 56.8883 56.8883 1.0900e- 003 1.0400e- 003 57.2345 Total 5.7500e- 003 0.0491 0.0209 3.1000e- 004 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 3.9700e- 003 0.0000 56.8883 56.8883 1.0900e- 003 1.0400e- 003 57.2345 Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Condo/ Townhouse 325443 93.1311 4.2800e- 003 8.9000e- 004 93.4955 Total 93.1311 4.2800e- 003 8.9000e- 004 93.4955 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 22 of 28 Use only Natural Gas Hearths 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.3223 9.0500e- 003 0.7739 4.0000e- 005 5.2900e- 003 5.2900e- 003 5.2800e- 003 5.2800e- 003 0.0000 17.2397 17.2397 1.5800e- 003 2.9000e- 004 17.3637 Unmitigated 0.5631 0.0152 1.2387 7.8000e- 004 0.0748 0.0748 0.0748 0.0748 7.8602 16.3512 24.2114 0.0247 5.3000e- 004 24.8957 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Condo/ Townhouse 325443 93.1311 4.2800e- 003 8.9000e- 004 93.4955 Total 93.1311 4.2800e- 003 8.9000e- 004 93.4955 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 23 of 28 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0289 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.2674 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.2424 6.1500e- 003 0.4649 7.4000e- 004 0.0707 0.0707 0.0707 0.0707 7.8602 15.1046 22.9648 0.0234 5.3000e- 004 23.6225 Landscaping 0.0244 9.0500e- 003 0.7738 4.0000e- 005 4.1700e- 003 4.1700e- 003 4.1700e- 003 4.1700e- 003 0.0000 1.2466 1.2466 1.2700e- 003 0.0000 1.2733 Total 0.5631 0.0152 1.2387 7.8000e- 004 0.0748 0.0748 0.0748 0.0748 7.8602 16.3512 24.2114 0.0247 5.3000e- 004 24.8957 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 24 of 28 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 29.1588 0.1584 3.9700e- 003 33.7136 Unmitigated 29.1588 0.1584 3.9700e- 003 33.7161 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Consumer Products 0.2674 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.6200e- 003 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1200e- 003 1.1200e- 003 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 15.9931 15.9931 3.1000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 16.0905 Landscaping 0.0244 9.0500e- 003 0.7738 4.0000e- 005 4.1700e- 003 4.1700e- 003 4.1700e- 003 4.1700e- 003 0.0000 1.2466 1.2466 1.2700e- 003 0.0000 1.2733 Architectural Coating 0.0289 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.3223 9.0500e- 003 0.7739 4.0000e- 005 5.2900e- 003 5.2900e- 003 5.2700e- 003 5.2700e- 003 0.0000 17.2397 17.2397 1.5800e- 003 2.9000e- 004 17.3637 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 25 of 28 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/ Outdoor Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Condo/ Townhouse 4.8214 / 3.03958 29.1588 0.1584 3.9700e- 003 33.7161 Total 29.1588 0.1584 3.9700e- 003 33.7161 Unmitigated Indoor/ Outdoor Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Condo/ Townhouse 4.8214 / 3.03958 29.1588 0.1584 3.9700e- 003 33.7136 Total 29.1588 0.1584 3.9700e- 003 33.7136 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 26 of 28 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 6.9098 0.4084 0.0000 15.4853 Unmitigated 6.9098 0.4084 0.0000 15.4853 Category/Year 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Condo/ Townhouse 34.04 6.9098 0.4084 0.0000 15.4853 Total 6.9098 0.4084 0.0000 15.4853 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 27 of 28 10.0 Vegetation 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Condo/ Townhouse 34.04 6.9098 0.4084 0.0000 15.4853 Total 6.9098 0.4084 0.0000 15.4853 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/14/2013 3:17 PMPage 28 of 28 Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES APPENDIX 3 Tel: 909 824 6400 Fax: 909 824 6405 October 18, 2013 Tom Dodson, President Tom Dodson and Associates, Inc. 2150 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92405 Re: Historical/Archaeological Resources Records Search Assessor's Parcel No. 5343-008-903 City of Temple City, Los Angeles County, California CRM TECH Contract No. 2749 Dear Mr. Dodson: At your request, CRM TECH has completed a historical/archaeological resources records search on the property referenced above. The focus of the records search, Assessor's Parcel No. 5343-008-903, consists of approximately 6.3 acres of partially developed land located at 9250 Lower Azusa Road, in a portion of the Rancho San Francisquito (Dalton) land grant lying within T1S R11W, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Fig. 1). It lies on the southeast side of Lower Azusa Road, east of Encinita Avenue, at the southwestern city limit of Temple City. The records search is a part of the environmental review process for a proposed residential development on the property, as required by the City of Temple City in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The purpose of the records search is to identify any known "historical resources," as defined by CEQA, or potential "historical resources" that may be affected by the proposed project. This letter presents a summary of the methods and results of the records search. Methods and Procedures The South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton, provided the records search service for this study. The SCCIC is the official cultural resource records repository for Los Angeles County, and a part of the California Historical Resource Information System, established and maintained under the auspices of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation. During the records search, Lindsey Noyes, SCCIC Lead Staff Researcher, checked records and maps on file at the SCCIC for previously identified historical/ archaeological resources in or near the project area and existing cultural resources reports pertaining to the vicinity. Previously identified historical/archaeological resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks or Points of Historical Interest as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources Inventory. 2 Figure 1. Project location. (Based on USGS El Monte, Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangle [USGS 1981]) 3 Results and Findings The SCCIC records indicate two linear studies within a quarter-mile radius of the project location, including a 1997 study covering a segment of Abilene Street to the southeast and a 1999 study for a proposed fiber optic cable along the southwestern boundary of the current project (Shepard and Brower 1997; Ashkar 1999; Fig. 2). The records further indicate that 14 historic-period sites have been recorded within the quarter-mile radius. One of these, designated Site 19-190502, represents the Southern California Edison Mesa-Anita-Eaton 66kV power transmission line, which was determined not to qualify for the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources (Becker 2010:2). Another linear site, 19-186112, represents the San Gabriel-Pomona line of the Southern Pacific Railroad, which runs immediately outside the southwestern project boundary. This rail line, now a part of the Union Pacific Railroad, was constructed in 1874-1877 (Signor 1997:31). As a component of the first major railroad system in California, the line played a important role in the growth of the state and the region in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Due to the lack of historic integrity to relate to that period, however, Site 19-186112 was determined not to qualify for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources (Herbert and Herrick 2002:2; Ramirez and Smith 2009:5; Smith and Steely 2009:5). Figure 2. Previous cultural resources studies in the vicinity of the project area, shown by SCCIC file number. 4 The other 12 recorded sites within the scope of the records search were all buildings that were found ineligible for any historical designation, and none of them was located in the immediate vicinity of the project area. No prehistoric—i.e., Native American— cultural remains have been recorded in or near the project area. Other Sources Consulted In addition to the cultural resources studies reported to the SCCIC, in 2012 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. of Redlands completed an environmental assessment on the project area, which included reviews of historic maps, aerial photographs, and city directories (Monge et al. 2012:19-23). Based on these sources, the 2012 study states that the project area was evidently vacant prior to 1956 but was later occupied by buildings and other facilities associated with a lumber enterprise that began operation some time between 1956 and 1968 (ibid.:3). As of 2012, five structures and a railroad siding remained extant within the project area (ibid.:2; Fig. 3). It should be noted that the 2012 Stantec study does not constitute a standard cultural resources survey required by CEQA despite the historical sources that were consulted. Its findings from the historical sources have not been reported to the SCCIC, nor have the structures and other features noted in the project area treated with focused historical background research, recorded into the California Historical Resources Inventory, or evaluated for potential historic significance under CEQA provisions. Figure 3. 2012 photograph of buildings and other features in the project area, possibly dating to the 1956- 1968 era. (Source: Monge et al. 2012) 5 Summary and Conclusion In summary, sources consulted during this study suggest that the project area has not been surveyed systematically for cultural resources, but the presence of structures and other features associated with a late historic-period lumber enterprise in the project area has been reported by a 2012 environmental study. These features may be more than 45 years old, and thus may meet the age threshold set forth by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation for recordation into the California Historical Resources Inventory (OHP 1995:2). Their qualification as "historical resources," as defined by CEQA, cannot be determined without further research and analysis. In light of these findings, CRM TECH recommends that the scope of the historical/ archaeological investigations on this property be expanded to include historical background research, Native American scoping, and a systematic field survey to fulfill the cultural resources requirements of CEQA and associated regulations. A final determination on the project's potential effect on any "historical resources" will need to be made on the basis of research results from these procedures. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact our office at (909) 824-6400. Sincerely, Bai "Tom" Tang, M.A. Principal, CRM TECH References Ashkar, Shahira 1999 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Williams Communications, Inc., Proposed Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project, Los Angeles to Riverside Counties. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Becker, Wendy L. Tinsley 2010 California Historical Resources Inventory site record, 19-190502. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Herbert, Rand F., and Jessica Herrick 2002 California Historical Resources Inventory site record, 19-186112. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Monge, Dion, Kristen Daly, and Kyle Emerson 2012 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 9250 Lower Azusa Road, Temple City, California 91780. Copy provided by Tom Dodson and Associates. OHP (Office of Historic Preservation, State of California) 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 6 Shepard, Richard S., and Niell Brower 1997 Phase III Cultural Resources Investigations: Archaeological Monitoring Program for Abilene Street Reconstruction, City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Ramirez, R., and F. Smith 2009 California Historical Resources Inventory site record (update), 19-186112. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Signor, John R. 1997 Southern Pacific Lines, Pacific Line Stations, Volume 1. Southern Pacific Historical and Technical Society, Pasadena. Smith, F., and J. Steely 2009 California Historical Resources Inventory site record (update), 19-186112. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES APPENDIX 4 NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS 9250 LOWER AZUSA ROAD TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: Giroux & Associates 1820 E Garry St., #211 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Prepared for: Tom Dodson & Associates Attn: Tom Dodson 2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, California 92405 Date: October 31, 2013 Project No.: P13-035 Noise Temple City Noise 2 NOISE SETTING Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally considered to be unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound pressure levels. Although decibels are most commonly associated with sound, "dB" is a generic descriptor that is equal to ten times the logarithmic ratio of any physical parameter versus some reference quantity. For sound, the reference level is the faintest sound detectable by a young person with good auditory acuity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire auditory spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions by weighting sounds within the range of maximum human sensitivity more heavily in a process called “A-weighting,” written as dB(A). Any further reference in this discussion to decibels written as "dB" should be understood to be A-weighted. Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called LEQ), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound pressure level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. Finally, because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Ldn (day- night) or the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL metric has gradually replaced the Ldn factor, but the two descriptors are essentially identical. CNEL-based standards are generally applied to transportation-related sources because local jurisdictions are pre-empted from exercising direct noise control over vehicles on public streets, aircraft, trains, etc. The City of Temple City therefore regulates the traffic noise exposure of the receiving property through land use controls. Noise/land use compatibility standards for various classes of land uses are generally expressed in the Noise Element of the General Plan to insure that noise exposure is considered in any development decisions. Temple City has guidelines for noise exposure standards for various land uses as shown in Table 1. For residential uses such as the proposed project, the City recommends an exterior noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL for outdoor recreational environments such as private yards, patios or balconies. Temple City Noise 3 Table 1 State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Temple City General Plan Noise Element Land Use CNEL (dBA) Categories Uses Interior1 Exterior2 Residential Single & multi-family, duplex Mobile homes 654 Commercial Hotel, motel & transient housing 45 65(5) Commercial retail, bank, restaurant 55 --- Office bldg., R&D, professional offices 50 --- Amphitheater, concert hall, auditorium 45 --- Gymnasium (Multipurpose)50 --- Sports Club 55 --- Manufacturing, warehousing, utilities 65 --- Movie Theaters 45 --- Institutional/Public Hospital, school classroom/playgrounds 45 65 Church, library 45 --- Open Space Parks --- 65 1 - Indoor environment excluding bathrooms, kitchens, closets and corridors 2 - Outdoor environment limited to: Private yard of single-family dwellings Multi-family private patios or balconies accessed from within dwelling Mobile home parks Park picnic areas School playgrounds Hospital patios 3 - Noise level with closed windows. Mechanical ventilation to be provided as per code 4 - Exterior noise levels should be such that interior levels do no exceed 45 dBA CNEL 5 –Except those areas affected by aircraft noise Temple City Noise 4 An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR, Title 24, Part 6, Section T25-28) for multiple-family dwellings and hotel and motel rooms. In 1988, the State Building Standards Commission expanded that standard to include all habitable rooms in residential use, including single-family dwelling units. Therefore, for this project an exterior noise level of 65 dB CNEL in any usable outdoor recreational area and interior noise level of 45 dB in any habitable indoor space are considered to be the appropriate compatibility standards. For “stationary” noise sources such as mechanical equipment (pool pumps, air conditioners, etc.), or noise from manufacturing uses, the City does have legal authority to establish noise performance standards designed to not adversely impact adjoining residential uses. These standards are typically articulated in the jurisdictional Municipal Code. These standards recognize the varying noise sensitivity of both transmitting and receiving land uses. The property line noise performance standards are normally structured according to land use and time-of-day. The noise standards provided in Section 9281 of the Temple City Municipal Code are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Noise Standards Zone 7:00 A.M. To 10:00 P.M.10:00 P.M. To 7:00 A.M. Residential 55 dBA 45 dBA Commercial 65 dBA 55 dBA Industrial 75 dBA 75 dBA According to the Temple City Planning Department,, noise associated with construction activities is allowed from 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on week days and Saturdays. Construction is not allowed on Sundays or Federal Holidays. Temple City Noise 5 BASELINE NOISE LEVELS Noise measurements were made in order to document existing baseline levels in the area, particularly train noise along the adjacent rail line to serve as a basis to determine noise exposure from ambient noise activities upon the proposed project. Long term (24-hour) noise measurements were conducted on Tuesday, October 22, to Wednesday, October 23, 2013, at three on-site locations locations. Long-term noise measurement locations were selected to document the daily trend in noise levels generated by Lower Azusa Road traffic but primarily from the adjacent rail line. Train horn noise was observed to be audible at the project site; both as trains approach from the west before they reach the Encinita Avenue crossing and as trains approach from the east. Measurement locations are shown in Figure 1. The monitoring results are shown in Table 3. Closest to Lower Azusa Road, noise levels were the highest, presumably because of the combination of traffic from Lower Azusa Road in addition to noise from trains and train horns as they approach the crossing. When adjusted for distance, noise readings are 74 dB CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the track centerline. Meter 1 is located approximately 100 feet from the Lower Azusa Road centerline while the nearest project residence is planned to have a 90 foot setback. Therefore, it is likely that actual noise at the westernmost site residences will be about equal to the measured 74 dB CNEL. Further east, observed CNELs at Meters 2 and 3, showed noise levels ranging from 70-73 dB when adjusted for a 50 foot separation distance. Given that noise levels may vary by location due to use of horns and distance separation to Lower Azusa Road, the above values are considered very consistent and are considered to provide an accurate characterization of the existing acoustic baseline. From this data we may infer that baseline noise levels are high in proximity to the railroad tracks and that mitigation will be necessary to meet the Temple City recommended noise compatibility guidelines. Temple City Noise 6 Figure 1 Noise Monitor Locations Meter Location Meter 1: Along chain link fence near site entrance, approximately 100 feet to center of track. Meter 2: Center of site, on fire hydrant enclosure, approximately 25 feet from center of track. Meter 3: Eastern portion of site, on fire hydrant enclosure, approximately 25 feet from center of track. Meter 1 Meter 2 Meter 3 Temple City Noise 7 Table 3 Noise Measurements Existing Hourly Leq’s (dB) Time Interval Leqs Meter 1 Leqs Meter 2 Leqs Meter 3 12:00-13:00 54 45 50 13:00-14:00 69 72 76 14:00-15:00 70 67 74 15:00-16:00 54 43 47 16:00-17:00 55 43 46 17:00-18:00 56 46 51 18:00-19:00 69 75 73 19:00-20:00 55 49 62 20:00-21:00 55 48 58 21:00-22:00 57 44 46 22:00-23:00 52 45 49 23:00-24:00 48 41 46 0:00-1:00 68 69 75 1:00-2:00 61 65 70 2:00-3:00 69 71 73 3:00-4:00 68 71 73 4:00-5:00 43 34 43 5:00:6:00 64 58 59 6:00-7:00 54 40 46 7:00-8:00 68 69 78 8:00-9:00 57 47 55 9:00-10:00 55 69 78 10:00-11:00 55 43 46 11:00-12:00 61 44 49 Resultant 24-Hour CNEL (dB) Measurement Parameter Meter 1 (dB CNEL) Meter 2 (dB CNEL) Meter 3 (dB CNEL) At noise monitor location 71 73 76 Adjusted for distance (25 feet from track centerline)77 73 76 Adjusted for distance (50 feet from track centerline)74 70 73 Temple City Noise 8 RAILROAD OPERATIONS NOISE CONSTRAINTS Currently a rail line runs parallel to the site along the entire southern perimeter. There are approximately 14 daily freight trains and on average, one passenger train a day. The passenger train travels the Amtrak Sunset Limited route. Possible future rail growth is unknown. It is assumed therefore, for the purposes of this analysis that future noise levels due to railroad operations will increase only slightly from current operations. A growth factor of 4 additional freight trains per day was assumed. Because of the logarithmic relationship between noise levels and traffic volumes, this will increase noise by only +1 dB. Therefore, worst case noise impacts due to rail operations and street traffic are assumed to be approximately 75 dB CNEL at the western site perimeter and 74 dB CNEL further east. Although these noise levels exceed the recommended compatibility recommendations, the guidelines are strictly advisory goals, and compliance is discretionary in special circumstances. Temple City Noise 9 NOISE IMPACTS NOISE SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Noise impacts are considered significant if they result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 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. STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Noise impacts are considered significant if they expose persons to levels in excess of standards established in local general plans or noise ordinances. The exterior noise standard for the City of Temple City for residential uses is 65 dBA CNEL in usable outdoor space such as backyards, decks, patios, etc. and 45 dB CNEL interior. Since the project does not have recreational space for individual units, the interior threshold was given primary consideration. If required, attenuation through setback, structural mitigation and project perimeter barriers is anticipated to be used to reduce transportation noise to the 45 dBA CNEL interior goal. However, an inability to achieve this goal through the application of reasonably available mitigation measures would be considered a significant impact. Impacts may also be significant if they create either a substantial permanent or temporary increase. However, passive use of the project site for 74 condo/townhome units is not expected to create a substantial noise impact for the surrounding community. CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS Temporary construction noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by earth-moving sources, then by foundation and construction. As shown in Figure 3, heavy equipment noise can exceed 90 dB(A) and averages about 85 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source when the equipment is operating at typical loads. Most heavy equipment operates with varying load cycles over any extended period of time. The upper end of Temple City Noise 10 the noise generation range shown in Figure 3 thus represents short-term effects, while the longer term averages are most representative of the lower end of the indicated noise curves. Point sources of noise emissions are atmospherically attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The loudest construction may require 500 feet of distance between the source and a nearby receiver to reduce the average 85 dB(A) source strength to a generally acceptable 65 dB exterior exposure level. However, existing single event noise from freight trains routinely exceeds these levels, including many times at night. Temporary construction equipment noise, particularly during demolition of structures and hardscape will not be a substantial increase compared to existing levels. There will be a limited period of time when the frequency of loud events may increase (both from construction equipment and passing trains). However, the magnitude of the loudest single event noises will not increase because the train engines are louder and closer to the existing homes to the south than is the on-site construction equipment. Construction noise impacts are considered to be less-than-significant. Temple City regulates construction noise though limitation of permissible hours. According to the Temple City Planning Department,, noise associated with construction activities is allowed from 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on week days and Saturdays. Construction is not allowed on Sundays or Federal Holidays. Temple City Noise 11 Figure 2 Temple City Noise 12 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY VIBRATION Typical background vibration levels in residential areas are usually 50 VdB or lower, below the threshold of human perception. Perceptible vibration levels inside residences are typically attributed to the operation of heating and air conditioning systems, door slams or street traffic. Construction activities and street traffic are some of the most common external sources of vibration that can be perceptible inside residences. Construction activities generate ground-borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement.The effects of ground-borne vibration include discernable movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds.Vibration related problems generally occur due to resonances in the structural components of a building because structures amplify groundborne vibration. Within the “soft” sedimentary surfaces of much of Southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped out. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors (FTA 2006). Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures. Because vibration is typically not an issue, very few jurisdictions have adopted vibration significance thresholds. Vibration thresholds have been adopted for major public works construction projects, but these relate mostly to structural protection (cracking foundations or stucco) rather than to human annoyance. Vibration is most commonly expressed in terms of the root mean square (RMS) velocity of a vibrating object. RMS velocities are expressed in units of vibration decibels. The range of vibration decibels (VdB) is as follows: 65 VdB - threshold of human perception 72 VdB - annoyance due to frequent events 80 VdB - annoyance due to infrequent events 94-98 VdB - minor cosmetic damage To determine potential impacts of the project’s construction activities, estimates of vibration levels induced by the construction equipment at various distances are presented below: Approximate Vibration Levels (VdB)* Equipment 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet 120 feet 200 feet Large Bulldozer 87 81 75 73 69 Loaded Truck 86 80 74 72 68 Jackhammer 79 73 67 65 61 Small Bulldozer 58 52 46 44 40 *(FTA Transit Noise & Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 2006) The on-site construction equipment that will create the maximum potential vibration is a large bulldozer. The stated vibration source level in the FTA Handbook for such equipment is 81 VdB at 50 feet from the source. With typical vibration energy spreading loss, the annoyance threshold of 80 VdB is met at 56 feet. The closest project residence is 120 feet from the construction Temple City Noise 13 activity. At this distance bulldozer vibration potential is mitigated to 73 VdB. Construction activity vibration impacts are judged as less-than-significant. RAIL VIBRATION Railroads generate ground-borne vibration that may be perceptible at adjacent residences. Construction of residential units in close proximity to railroad tracks can cause rattling windows and throbbing floors. At stronger vibration levels, cosmetic damage can occur in fragile buildings. Vibration is most commonly expressed in terms of the root mean square (RMS) velocity of a vibrating object. Train vibration depends upon a variety of factors. The weight of the train, the travel speed, the condition of the track and the character of the subsoil all affect the observed vibration level. The USDOT Guideline called “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (May, 2006) suggests a significance threshold of 80 VdB for train vibrations if there are fewer than 70 train movements per day. There are currently approximately 14 daily trains passing by the project site and this is not expected to increase substantially in the future. As shown in Figure 3, use of DOT guidelines predicts vibration levels of 85 VdB at 50 feet from the track for freight trains traveling at 50 mph. The site buildings are setback approximately 50 feet from the train tracks. Vibration levels from heavy rail systems depend upon train travel speed. Freight trains are restricted to a 30 mph speed limit in areas of at-grade crossings. The RMS vibration level at 30 mph is approximately 3 VdB less than at 50 mph. A reference vibration level of 82 VdB has therefore been assumed for the building footprints of the proposed project. Vibration generally reduces as it propagates though a building. In addition large masonry buildings with spread footings have a low response to ground vibration. The following coupling losses are generally observed in the indicated types of construction per USDOT Guidelines: Wood Frame -5 VdB 1-2 Story Commercial -7 VdB 3-4 Story Masonry -10 VdB Large Masonry on Piles -10 VdB Large Masonry on Spread Footings -13 VdB For this project a -7 dB coupling loss “credit” was taken per building since the proposed buildings are at two stories high. Freight train vibration levels of 82 VdB at 50 feet from the track centerline for a locomotive-powered freight train traveling at 30 mph would exceed the VdB significance threshold without the effects of coupling losses. Temple City Noise 14 FIGURE 3 GENERALIZE GROUND SURFACE VIBRATION CURVES These vibration estimates are at slab level. The proposed upstairs residential uses will not experience the full vibration level that is observed at slab level. Floor/ceiling assemblies and floor coverings (especially carpet) will absorb a portion of the vibration energy. Vibration reduction “credit” for hard floor surfaces (tile, light weight concrete, etc.) is -2 VdB at ground levels and increases by an additional -2 dB upstairs. Measurements of impact isolation show that carpets and pads reduce vibration by more than 10 VdB. Counteracting aborption effects, the USDOT guidelines suggest a +6 VdB factor be included to account for amplification due to resonance of floors, walls and ceilings. Table 4 summarizes the appropriate credits and losses, and shows that vibration levels experienced by a person standing indoors will be marginally below the significance threshold of 80 VdB on hard surfaces, and well below the threshold on carpeted floors. Vibration annoyance impacts are considered less-than- significant. Temple City Noise 15 Structural damage to stucco or similar materials requires vibration levels close to 100 VdB. There are no project components that would experience such levels due to train operations. Assuming all units facing the railroad tracks will be equipped with dual-paned windows with upgraded seals for noise control, these more robust windows will have little tendency to rattle. Vibration effects within residential units passing through floors or windows will be less-than- significant. Table 4 Interior Vibration Levels (VdB) (at 50 feet to track centerline) 1st Story Hard Floor 1stStory Carpet & Pad 2nd Story Hard Floor 2nd Story Carpet & Pad Max. Unmitigated Vibration 82 82 82 82 Coupling Losses -7 -7 -7 -7 Building Resonance +6 +6 +6 +6 Floor-to-Floor Absorption 0 0 -2 -2 Floor Covering -2 -10 -2 -10 Net Vibration 79 71 77 69 Temple City Noise 16 ON-SITE RAILROAD NOISE Existing measured railroad noise from freight hauling and passenger use is estimated to create a maximum noise level of 73-74 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the track centerline. This level may increase in response to anticipated growth of rail service. The level of future rail activity growth is unknown, however future train noise may be reduced by “quiet zone” programs to reduce horn use for at-grade crossings. For purposes of analysis, projected rail growth and any possible off- set were assumed to combine for a limited increase of +1 dB from existing conditions. The future build-out train noise for any project residential use facing the railroad tracks is therefore assumed to be 75 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the track centerline. Noise exposure may be reduced by increasing the distance between the noise source and receiver. For a line source such as a moving train the reduction is generally 3 dBA per doubling of distance to the source. To provide reductions from 75 dB CNEL to 65 dB CNEL (the City of Temple City recommended exterior threshold for residential use) would require a setback from the railroad tracks of 500 feet. This possibility was deemed unfeasible. The proposed project does not anticipate any recreational space fronting the rail line. The main noise concern was considered to be the interior noise level. Acoustical design of the building façade offers a noise mitigation option to mitigate train noise for any residential unit with a line of sight to the tracks. The goal is for interior space is a noise level less than 45 dB CNEL. Therefore, acoustical upgrades capable of reducing interior noise to 45 dB CNEL in any noise sensitive space (bedrooms or living rooms) would be required. Mitigation of noise levels up to 75 dBA CNEL can typically be achieved through moderately upgraded structural features such that reductions up to 30 dB are typically attainable while still allowing for discretionary window opening. For typical wood-frame construction with stucco and gypsum board wall assemblies, the noise level reduction is as follows: Partly open windows 12 dBA Closed single-paned windows 20 dBA Closed dual-paned windows 25-30 dBA Use of dual-paned windows is required by the California Building Code for energy conservation in new residential construction. Interior noise standards would therefore be met with only the use of closed dual-paned windows at the noisiest units. It is noted that where window closure is a requirement for interior noise control, the Building Code requires provision of supplemental ventilation at a specified rate with a specified fraction of fresh make-up air. The provision of supplemental ventilation is a standard construction practice. Noise attenuation can also be achieved through use of a wall, barrier or berm between the noise source and receiver. This barrier would only be effective if it could break the line of sight to the Temple City Noise 17 receiver. However, since this project consists of buildings of up to two stories, a barrier would be required to be 16-feet high to break the line of sight for both levels. Alternatively, a 12-foot wall would break the line-of-sight for ground floor units. Therefore any one of the following menu of mitigation options would reduce interior noise to the recommended 45 dB CNEL compatibility level: Sound Wall (16-foot) No additional mitigation necessary except the ability to close dual paned windows and the provision of supplemental ventilation Sound Wall (12-foot) First Story: no mitigation required Second Story: 30 dB mitigation package1 Provision of supplemental ventilation No Wall First and Second Story: 30 dB mitigation package1 Provision of supplemental ventilation This analysis assumes that the trains will be required to continue to utilize horns (not a quiet zone) for at-grade crossings. If Temple City achieves a “quiet zone” status, a new analysis will be required. Regardless, real-estate disclosure is required for property owners informing of a rail line in the vicinity and that associated vibration and noise may be perceptible. Because the exterior tier of development will shield any interior units, acoustic upgrades are needed on only the front and side faces of the southernmost tier of residences. A supplemental acoustical analysis should be submitted in conjunction with the issuance of building permits to verify that adequate structural noise protection exists in perimeter residences adjoining the railroad tracks to meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior standard. As discussed, supplemental ventilation (most likely air conditioning with a fresh make-up air inlet) is required in any livable space where window closure to shut out transportation noise is needed to meet interior standards. 1 Provided in Table 5 Temple City Noise 18 Table 5 Prototype 30 dB Structural Noise Attenuation Package Recommended Building Requirements for a Minimum Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of 30 dB 1. Compliance Compliance with the following standards shall be deemed to meet the requirements of the Compatible Use Districts in which an NLR 30 is specified. 2. General a. Brick veneer, masonry blocks or stucco exterior walls shall be constructed airtight. All joints shall be grouted or caulked airtight. b. At the penetration of exterior walls by pipes, ducts or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar. c. Window and/or through-the-wall ventilation units shall not be used. d. All sleeping spaces shall be provided with either a sound-absorbing ceiling or a carpeted floor. e. Through-the-wall/door mailboxes shall not be used. 3. Exterior Walls a. Exterior walls other than as described below shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC-44. b. Masonry walls having a surface weight of at least 40 pounds per square foot do not require a furred (stud) interior wall. At least one surface of concrete block walls shall be plastered or painted with heavy "bridging" paint. c. Stud walls shall be at least 4 inches in nominal depth and shall be finished on the outside with siding-on-sheathing, stucco, or brick veneer. (1) Interior surface of the exterior walls shall be of gypsum board or plaster at least 1/2-inch thick, installed on the studs. The gypsum board or plaster may be fastened rigidly to the studs if the exterior is brick veneer or stucco. If the exterior is siding- Temple City Noise 19 on-sheathing, the interior gypsum board or plaster must be fastened resiliently to the studs. (2) Continuous composition board, plywood or gypsum board sheathing shall cover the exterior side of the wall studs behind wood, or metal siding. The sheathing and facing shall weigh at least 4 pounds per square foot. (3) Sheathing panels shall be butted tightly and covered on the exterior with overlapping building paper. The top and bottom edges of the sheathing shall be sealed. (4) Insulation material at least 2-inch thick shall be installed continuously throughout the cavity space behind the exterior sheathing and between wall studs. Installation shall be glass fiber or mineral wool. 4. Windows a. Windows other than as described in this section shall have a laboratory sound transmission rating of at least STC-30. b. Glass of double-glazed windows shall be at least 1/8-inch thick. c. Double-glazed windows shall employ fixed sash or efficiently weather stripped operable sash. The sash shall be rigid and weather stripped with material that is compressed air tight when the window is closed so as to conform to an infiltration test not to exceed 0.5-cubic foot per minute per foot of crack of length in accordance with ASTM E-283-65-T. d. Glass of fixed-sash windows shall be sealed in an airtight manner with a non-hardening sealant, or a soft elastomer gasket or glazing tape. e. The perimeter of window frames shall be sealed airtight to the exterior wall construction with a sealant conforming to one of the following Federal Specifications: TT-S-00230, or TT-S-00153. f. The total area of glass of both windows and exterior doors in sleeping spaces shall not exceed 20 percent of the floor space. 5. Doors a. Doors, other than as described in this section shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC-35. b. The glass of double-glazed sliding doors shall be separated by an airspace. Each sliding frame shall be provided with an efficiently airtight weather stripping material as specified in Section 4C. Temple City Noise 20 c. Glass of all doors shall be at least 3/16-inch thick. Glass of double sliding doors shall not be equal in thickness. d. The perimeter of door frames shall be sealed airtight to the exterior wall construction. e. Glass of doors shall be set and sealed in an airtight non-hardening sealant, or a soft elastomer gasket or glazing tape. 6. Roofs a. Combined roof and ceiling construction other than described in this section and Section 7 shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC-44. b. With an attic or rafter space at least 6 inches deep, and with a ceiling below, the roof shall consist of closely butted 1/2-inch composition board, plywood or gypsum board sheathing topped by roofing as required. c. If the underside of the roof is exposed, or if the attic or rafter spacing is less than 6 inches, the roof construction shall have a surface weight of at least 40 pounds per square foot. Rafters joists, or other framing may not be included in the surface weight calculation. d. Window or dome skylights shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC-33. 7. Ceilings a. Gypsum board or plaster ceilings at least 1/2-inch thick shall be provided where required by Paragraph 6.b above. Ceilings shall be substantially airtight, with a minimum number of penetrations. b. Glass fiber or mineral wool insulation at least 3.5-inch thick shall be provided above the ceiling between joists. 8. Floors The floor of the lowest occupied rooms shall be slab on fill, below grade, or over a fully enclosed basement. All door and window openings in the fully enclosed basement shall be tightly fitted. 9. Ventilation a. A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed that will provide at least two air changes per hour with at least 20 percent fresh air supply requirements for various use in occupied rooms without the need to open any windows, doors, or other openings to the exterior. Temple City Noise 21 b. Gravity vent openings in attic shall not exceed code minimum in number and size. The openings shall be fitted with transfer ducts at least 3 feet in length containing internal sound absorbing duct lining. Each duct shall have a lined 90-degree bend in the duct such that there is no direct line of sight from the exterior through the duct into the attic. c. If a fan is used for forced ventilation, the attic inlet and discharge openings shall be fitted with sheet metal transfer ducts of at least 20-gauge steel, which shall be lined with 1-inch thick coated glass fiber, and shall be at least 5 feet long with one 90-degree bend. d. All vent ducts connecting the interior space to the outdoors, except in domestic range exhaust ducts, shall contain at least a 10-foot length of internal sound absorbing duct lining. Each duct shall be provided with a lined 90-degree bend in the duct such that there is no direct line of sight through the duct from the venting cross section to the room opening cross section. e. Duct lining shall be coated glass fiber duct liner at least 1-inch thick. f. Domestic range exhaust ducts connecting the interior space to the outdoors shall contain a baffle plate across the exterior termination that allows proper ventilation. The dimensions of the baffle plate should extend at least one diameter beyond the line of sight into the vent duct. The baffle plate shall be of the same material and thickness as the vent duct material. g. Building heating units with flues or combustion air vents shall be located in a closet or room closed off from the occupied space by doors. h. Doors between occupied space and mechanical equipment areas shall be solid core wood or 20-gauge steel hollow metal at least 1-3/4-inch thick and shall be fully weather stripped. Temple City Noise 22 SUMMARY On-site noise monitoring demonstrates future noise levels along the railroad track at the southern site perimeter could be as high as 75 dB CNEL closest to the track centerline. Interior noise levels within perimeter residential units can be mitigated to below 45 dB CNEL with upgraded acoustical features and specialized construction methods as shown in Table 5. All homes within the project site will require upgraded air conditioning and ventilation to allow for the closure of windows as a mitigation measure. Alternatively, the indicated sound walls at the southern site perimeter would provide the necessary attenuation such that the structural mitigation measures would not be necessary: Sound Wall (16-foot) No additional mitigation necessary except the ability to close dual paned windows and the provision of supplemental ventilation Sound Wall (12-foot) First story: no mitigation required Sound Story: 30 dB mitigation package2 Provision of supplemental ventilation No Wall 30 dB mitigation package2 Provision of supplemental ventilation Once building plans are finalized, a supplemental acoustical report verifying compliance based upon the selected structural features must be prepared at the building permit plan check stage. Real-estate disclosure is required for property owners informing of a rail line in the vicinity and that associated vibration and noise may be perceptible. Noise or vibration from construction activities will not create a significant impact. 2 Provided in Table 5 Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES APPENDIX 5 Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................... 1-1 A. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives 1-1 B. Site Location and Study Area 1-1 C. Development Project Description 1-2 2.0 Methodology......................................................................................... 2-1 A. Analysis Methodology 2-1 1. ICU Methodology 2-1 2. HCM Methodology 2-3 B. Acceptable Level of Service 2-3 C. Significant Impact 2-4 3.0 Area Conditions..................................................................................... 3-1 A. Study Area 3-1 B. Existing Traffic Controls and Intersection Geometrics 3-1 C. Existing (Adjusted) Traffic Volumes 3-1 D. Existing Adjusted) Level of Service 3-2 E. General Plan Circulation Element 3-2 4.0 Projected Traffic .................................................................................... 4-1 A. Ambient Growth 4-1 B. Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth Traffic Volumes 4-1 C. Project Traffic Volumes 4-1 1. Trip Generation 4-1 2. Trip Distribution and Assignment 4-2 3. Modal Split 4-3 4. Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4-3 D. Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth and Project Traffic Volumes 4-3 E. Cumulative Project Traffic Volumes 4-3 F. Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative Traffic Volumes 4-4 5.0 Traffic Analysis....................................................................................... 5-1 A. Capacity and Level of Service Improvement Analysis 5-1 1. Level of Service for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth Conditions 5-1 2. Level of Service for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth and Project Traffic Conditions 5-1 3. Level of Service for Existing (Adjusted) With Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative Traffic Conditions 5-2 Table of Contents (continued) Section Page 6.0 On-Site Circulation and Queuing........................................................... 6-1 A. Vehicle Turning Templates 6-1 B. Lower Azusa Road Queuing 6-1 7.0 Findings and Recommendations........................................................... 7-1 A. Intersection Analysis Summary 7-1 B. Proposed Roadway Improvements 7-2 C. Circulation Recommendations 7-2 1. On-Site 7-2 2. Area-Wide 7-2 D. Intersection Sight Distance, Safety, and Operational Improvements 7-3 E. Conclusions 7-3 List of Attachments Exhibits Location Map........................................................................................................... A Site Plan................................................................................................................... B Existing Lane Geometry and Intersection Controls................………………………….. C Existing (Adjusted) Traffic Volumes ................................……………………………… D County of Los Angeles General Plan Circulation Element.……………………………… E-1 County of Los Angeles General Plan Roadway Classification and Standards................ E-2 Temple City General Plan Circulation Element.................……………………………… E-3 Temple City General Plan Roadway Classification and Standards……………………… E-4 Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth (Year 2016) Traffic Volumes....................... F Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................................ G Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. H Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth (Year 2016) Plus Project Traffic Volumes..... I Cumulative Developments Location Map................................................................... J Zone 1 Cumulative Development Trip Distribution..................................................... K-1 Zone 2 Cumulative Development Trip Distribution..................................................... K-2 Cumulative Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................... L Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth (Year 2016) Plus Project and Cumulative Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. M Vehicle Turning Templates (Inbound) ....................................................................... N-1 Vehicle Turning Templates (Outbound) .................................................................... N-2 Intersection Sight Distance Analysis........................................................................... O Recommendations ................................................................................................... P List of Attachments (continued) Tables Intersection Analysis for Existing (Adjusted) Conditions.............................................. 1 Trip Generation Rates ............................................................................................... 2 Project Trip Generation Comparison.......................................................................... 3 Cumulative Project Trip Generation Rates.................................................................. 4 Cumulative Project Trip Generation........................................................................... 5 Intersection Analysis for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth Conditions............ 6 Intersection Analysis for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth and Project Conditions 7 Intersection Analysis for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative Traffic Conditions ................................................................................... 8 Summary Intersection Analysis.................................................................................. 9 Required Intersection Improvements ......................................................................... 10 List of Attachments (continued) Appendices Existing Traffic Count Worksheets ............................................................................ A Existing (Adjusted) Traffic Count Worksheets ............................................................ B Existing (Adjusted) Level of Service Analysis Worksheets ............................................ C Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth (Year 2016) Conditions Level of Service Analysis Worksheets.......................................................................... D Existing Plus Ambient Growth (Year 2016) Plus Project Conditions Level of Service Analysis Worksheets.......................................................................... E Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth (Year 2016) Plus Project and Cumulative Conditions Level of Service Analysis Worksheets ........................................................ F Fire Access Plan ........................................................................................................ G HCM Queuing Analysis Worksheets........................................................................... H AASHTO Sight Distance Guidelines............................................................................ I County of Los Angeles Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines........................................... J 1-1 1.0 Introduction A. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives The purpose of this Traffic Impact Analysis is to evaluate the 74 single family attached and detached residential townhomes development, located at 9250 Lower Azusa Road, from a traffic circulation standpoint. The proposed development is located within Temple City. It should be noted that the Temple City Traffic Impact Study guidelines follow the County of Los Angeles guidelines and requirements. Study objectives include: (1) documentation of Existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site with existing lane geometry; (2) evaluation of Existing Plus Ambient Growth (Year 2016) conditions; (3) evaluation of Existing Plus Ambient Growth (Year 2016) Plus Project conditions; (4) evaluation of Existing Plus Ambient Growth (Year 2016) Plus Project and Cumulative Developments traffic conditions; and (5) determination of on-site and off-site improvements and system management actions needed to achieve the County of Los Angeles level of service requirements. B. Site Location and Study Area The proposed project is located south of Lower Azusa Road and east of Encinita Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad, in Temple City. Exhibit A illustrates the site location and traffic analysis study area. The study area includes the following intersections: North-South Street East-West Street Encinita Avenue Lower Azusa Road Temple City Boulevard Lower Azusa Road 1-2 C. Development Project Description The proposed development will consist of 74 attached and detached residential townhomes. Exhibit B illustrates the site plan. The proposed project will have access to the adjoining roadway network via one (1) full access driveway on Lower Azusa Road. The project is proposed for completion by Year 2016 and has been analyzed in one (1) complete phase. 2-1 2.0 Methodology A. Analysis Methodology 1. ICU Methodology The methodology used to assess the operation of the signalized study area intersection is the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. To calculate the ICU, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. ICU is usually expressed as a ratio. This ratio represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. 1. The ICU methodology was used to analyze signalized study area intersections. 2. Saturation Flow Rate: Saturation flow value of 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour for all lanes; no adjustments are used for protected movements with dedicated lanes (including both right and left turns). 3. Clearance Internal and Cycle Time: A clearance interval factor of 10% (0.10) is applied to the ICU calculations. The cycle time is 100 seconds. 4. Level of Service Ranges: LOS CRITICAL VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO A 0.00 - 0.60 B 0.61 - 0.70 C 0.71 - 0.80 D 0.81 - 0.90 E 0.91 - 1.00 F >1.00 2-2 The following thresholds are used in assigning a letter value to the resulting Levels of Service. 5. Peak-Periods: Weekday peak-hour analysis periods are defined as follows: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 6. Peak-Hour: The highest one-hour period in both the AM and PM peak periods, as determined by four (4) consecutive 15-minute count periods are used in the ICU calculations. Both AM and PM peak hours are studied. 7. Peak-Hour Data Consistency: Variations in peak-hour volumes can affect LOS calculations because they vary from day to day. To minimize these variations, no counts are taken on Mondays, Fridays, holidays or weekends. The traffic count worksheets for this study are included in Appendix A. 8. Right Turn Movements: If the distance from the edge of the outside through lane is sufficient and parking is prohibited during the peak period, right turning vehicles may be assumed to utilize this "unofficial" right turn lane. Otherwise, all right turn traffic is assigned to the through lane. If a right turn lane exists, right turn activity is checked for conflicts with other critical movements. It is assumed that right turn movements are accommodated during non-conflicting left turn phases (e.g., northbound right turns during westbound left turn phase), as well as non-conflicting through flows (e.g., northbound right turn movements and north/south through flows). Right turn movements become critical when conflicting movements (e.g., northbound right turns, southbound left turns, and eastbound through flows) represent a sum of V/C ratios that are greater than the normal through/left turn critical movements. 2-3 2. HCM Methodology Study area intersections that are stop-sign controlled (project driveways) have been analyzed using the unsignalized intersection methodology of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000). For intersections with stop control on the minor street only, the calculation of level of service is dependent on the occurrence of gaps occurring in the traffic flow of the main street, and the level of service is determined based on the worst individual movement or movements sharing a single lane. By using data collected that describes the intersection configuration and traffic volumes at these locations, the level of service has been calculated. The level of service for the HCM 2000 unsignalized methodology is defined as follows: Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) LOS Unsignalized A 0.00 - 10.00 B 10.01 - 15.00 C 15.01 - 25.00 D 25.01 - 35.00 E 35.01 - 50.00 F >50.01 B. Acceptable Level of Service The acceptable Level of Service (LOS) for intersections within the County of Los Angeles is LOS D or better. Therefore, any intersections operating at a LOS E or LOS F will be considered deficient. For this study, the ICU methodology has been utilized to analyze the signalized study area intersections. 2-4 C. Significant Impact According the Los Angeles County guidelines, the impact is considered significant for intersections if the project related increase in the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio equals or exceeds the threshold shown below: Pre-Project LOS Pre-Project V/C Project V/C Increase C 0.71 – 0.80 0.04 or more D 0.81 – 0.90 0.02 or more E/F 0.91 or more 0.01 or more It should be noted that there are no Los Angeles County guidelines for the significant impact at unsignalized intersections which are analyzed with the HCM Methodology. 3-1 3.0 Area Conditions A. Study Area The study area includes the following intersections: North-South Street East-West Street Encinita Avenue Lower Azusa Road Temple City Boulevard Lower Azusa Road B. Existing Traffic Controls and Intersection Geometrics Exhibit C identifies the existing roadway conditions for the study area roadways. The number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection controls are identified. C. Existing (Adjusted) Traffic Volumes Existing (adjusted) AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the study area intersections are shown on Exhibit D. These volumes are based upon manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts collected for RK in August 2013. The traffic count worksheets are included in Appendix A. Existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on study area roadways were calculated based upon the following formula: ADT = 10 x (PM peak hour traffic volume) 3-2 It should be noted that due to the traffic counts being collected during the summer and during the Baldwin Avenue construction, Temple City’s Traffic Engineer, Mr. Yunus Rahi, has directed RK to adjust the traffic volumes. At the intersection of Encinita Avenue at Lower Azusa Road, all traffic movements were increased by 10% during the AM Peak hour to account for the expected increase in traffic once the nearby schools are back in session. However, since the school PM peak hour is not exactly the same as commuter PM peak hour, RK was directed to only increase the PM traffic movements by 5%. At the intersection of Temple City Boulevard at Lower Azusa Road, the same adjustments as the intersection of Encinita Avenue at Lower Azusa Road have been made; a 10% increase for AM peak hour movements and 5% increase for PM peak hour movements. However, the Baldwin Avenue construction detour affects primarily the westbound left turn and northbound right turn movements at this intersection; therefore, a 5% decrease in traffic volumes at these movements seem appropriate. The adjusted traffic counts worksheets are included in Appendix B. D. Existing (Adjusted) Level of Service Existing intersection level of service calculations are shown in Table 1. For Existing (Adjusted) traffic conditions, all study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during peak hours. The ICU calculation worksheets for existing conditions are provided in Appendix C. E. General Plan Circulation Element Exhibits E-1 and E-2 show the County of Los Angeles General Plan Circulation Element and Roadway Cross Sections. And Exhibits E-3 and E-4 show the Temple City General Plan Circulation Element and Roadway Cross Sections. 4-1 4.0 Projected Traffic A. Ambient Growth Project Buildout is planned for the Year 2016. RK has assumed a background traffic growth rate of 1% per year, based upon the 2010 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Guidelines (per RSA 22). Therefore, a 3% of total growth has been assumed for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth conditions. B. Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth Traffic Volumes Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth traffic conditions include existing traffic volumes on surrounding roadways with the ambient growth rate. The AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and average daily traffic are shown on Exhibit F. C. Project Traffic Volumes 1. Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a development. The traffic generation for the project is based upon the specific land uses that have been planned for the development. The proposed residential development will consist of 74 dwelling units of attached and detached residential townhomes, as shown in Exhibit B. Trip generation rates for the proposed development are shown in Table 2 and are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th Edition. This 4-2 publication provides a comprehensive evaluation of trip generation rate for a variety of lane uses. Both daily and peak-hour trip generation for the proposed development are shown in Table 3. The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 430 trip ends per day, with 33 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 39 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. 2. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of residential, employment, and recreational opportunities, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing and proposed land uses, and highways within the community. Trip distribution patterns for this study have been based upon near-term conditions, based upon those highway facilities that are either in place or will be contemplated over the next few years, which represents the buildout occupancy for the proposed development. The trip distribution patterns for the project are graphically depicted on Exhibit G. The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distribution, and proposed arterial highway and local street systems that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the site. 4-3 3. Modal Split Modal split denotes the proportion of traffic generated by a project that would use any of the transportation modes, namely buses, cars, bicycles, motorcycles, trains, carpools, etc. The traffic reducing potential of public transit and other modes is significant. However, the traffic projections in this study are "conservative" in that public transit and alternative transportation may be able to reduce the traffic volumes. Thus, no modal split reduction is applied to the projections. With the implementation of transit service and provision of alternative transportation ideas and incentives, the automobile traffic demand can be reduced significantly. 4. Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and average daily traffic are shown on Exhibit H. D. Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth and Project Traffic Volumes Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth traffic conditions include adjusted existing traffic volumes on surrounding roadways with the ambient growth rate plus the project traffic. The AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and average daily traffic are shown on Exhibit I. E. Cumulative Project Traffic Volumes Cumulative projects within a 1.5-mile radius of the project have been considered for inclusion in this traffic impact study. Because of the site’s proximity to other jurisdictions, RK contacted the City of El Monte and the City of Rosemead. The City of Rosemead did not have any projects within a 1.5-mile radius of the proposed development. The City of El Monte has two (2) projects within 1.5 miles of the 4-4 project, as shown in Zone 1 and Zone 2. Temple City has does not have any major projects located approximately 1.5 miles from the project site. Exhibit J shows the location of these cumulative projects. Table 4 includes the trip generation rates for the cumulative developments and Table 5 includes the trip generation for the cumulative developments. The trip distributions for the cumulative projects are shown on Exhibits K-1 and K-2. Cumulative development peak hour and daily traffic volumes are included on Exhibit L. F. Existing (Adjusted) With Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative Traffic Volumes In order to assess Existing (Adjusted) With Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative traffic conditions, the ambient growth, project traffic and cumulative development traffic volumes were added to the existing peak hour intersection traffic counts. Existing (Adjusted) With Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative Traffic AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and average daily traffic are shown on Exhibit M. 5-1 5.0 Traffic Analysis A. Capacity and Level of Service Improvement Analysis 1. Level of Service for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth Conditions Intersection levels of service for the adjusted existing network with ambient growth are shown on Table 6. As shown on Table 6, ICU calculations are based on the existing intersection geometrics. For Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth traffic conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during peak hours. ICU calculation worksheets for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth conditions are provided in Appendix D. 2. Level of Service for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth and Project Traffic Conditions Intersection levels of service for the adjusted existing network with ambient growth and project traffic are shown in Table 7. As shown in Table 7, ICU calculations are based on the existing intersection geometrics. For Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth and Project traffic conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during peak hours. . The project is not expected to significantly impact any of the study area intersections. It should be noted that there are no Los Angeles County guidelines to 5-2 determine significance at unsignalized intersections which are analyzed with the HCM Methodology. ICU calculation worksheets for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth and Project Traffic conditions are provided in Appendix E. 3. Level of Service for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative Traffic Conditions Intersection Levels of Service for the adjusted existing network with background growth, proposed project and the cumulative projects are shown in Table 8. As shown in Table 8, ICU calculations are based on the existing intersection geometrics. For Existing (Adjusted) With Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative Traffic conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during peak hours. A discussion of this intersection’s traffic conditions is noted previously. ICU calculation worksheets for Existing (Adjusted) With Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative Traffic conditions are provided in Appendix F. 6-1 6.0 On-Site Circulation and Queuing RK has reviewed the proposed site plan, shown on Exhibit B, with regards to on-site circulation and truck turning movements. The project proposes to have one (1) access point to the site along Lower Azusa Road. A. Vehicle Turning Templates RK has prepared vehicle turning templates based on the type of vehicles anticipated to serve the site. It is expected that the site will experience passenger cars and garbage trucks. Vehicle turning templates, showing the vehicle type with the longest wheel base and greatest turning radius (garbage trucks), are shown on Exhibits N-1 and N-2. As shown on Exhibits N-1 and N-2, the proposed site plan would adequately accommodate truck turning movements within the planned circulation system. In addition, it is anticipated that the intersection of the Project Driveway at Lower Azusa Road will operate at acceptable level of service during peak hours, as shown in Appendices E and F. It should be noted that the applicant has met with the Los Angeles Fire Department to discuss the internal circulation for fire trucks and have designed the community per the Fire Department’s standards. The Fire Access Plan, which includes the fire department turnaround templates, is provided in Appendix G. B. Lower Azusa Road Queuing RK has prepared a queuing analysis for the potential stacking of vehicles traveling westbound on Lower Azusa Road, adjacent to the project access point. The City is concerned that during heavy congestion, vehicles will queue at the intersection of 6-2 Encinita Avenue at Lower Azusa Road and will possibly obstruct vehicles from turning left from the project driveway onto Lower Azusa Road. RK has analyzed the potential stacking at the intersection of Encinita Avenue at Lower Azusa Road by using the HCM 2000 methodology under Existing (Adjusted) With Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative Traffic conditions. In addition, RK assumed a saturation flow value of 1,600 vehicles per lane, as opposed to 1,900 vehicles per lane, as a conservative measure. Based on this analysis, there is an anticipated design queue of eleven (11) vehicles per thru lane traveling westbound. Assuming each vehicle accounts to 25 feet of roadway, the anticipated queue length traveling westbound on Lower Azusa Road will be 275 feet. Therefore, there is an additional 300 feet of available roadway for vehicles to queue, excluding the 125 feet of ‘Keep Clear’ railroad crossing area, until the project driveway is blocked. Based on this analysis, it is estimated that vehicles queuing from Encinita Avenue at Lower Azusa Road will not stack up beyond the project driveway under existing or future conditions. HCM queuing analysis worksheets for Existing (Adjusted) With Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative Traffic conditions are provided in Appendix H. It should be noted that if the Union Railroad, located adjacent to the project driveway, is in operation, there is a possibility that vehicles will queue momentarily beyond the project driveway while a train passes. 7-1 7.0 Findings and Recommendations A. Intersection Analysis Summary I. A summary of the level of service analysis for each condition is included in Table 9. II. For Existing (Adjusted) traffic conditions, all study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during peak hours. III. The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 430 trip ends per day, with 33 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 39 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. IV. For Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth traffic conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during peak hours. V. For Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth and Project traffic conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during peak hours. The project is not expected to significantly impact any of the study area intersections. VI. For Existing (Adjusted) With Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative Traffic conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during peak hours. VII. The internal circulation provided on the Site Plan is adequate to meet the County of Los Angeles standards if the recommendations included in this report are implemented. 7-2 B. Proposed Roadway Improvements A summary of the recommended roadway improvements, that are necessary to meet level of service standards for Existing (Adjusted) Plus Ambient Growth conditions and Project and Existing (Adjusted) With Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative traffic conditions, are included in Table 10. However, it should be noted that there are no improvements required as a result of the project since the project does not have a significant impact to the study area intersections. C. Circulation Recommendations 1. On-Site I. Construct the on-site circulation system per the detailed site plan. II. Provided one (1) project access driveway on Lower Azusa Road, as shown in Exhibit B. III. Install stop signs, stop bars, and stop legends at project access point. On-site circulation recommendations are shown on Exhibit P. 2. Area-Wide I. Complete any remaining half-section street improvements for Lower Azusa Road adjacent to the project, such as sidewalk improvements. Area-wide recommendations are summarized on Exhibit P. 7-3 D. Intersection Sight Distance, Safety, and Operational Improvements Intersection sight distance at the intersection of the project driveway at Lower Azusa Road has been analyzed based on AASHTO Sight Distance Standards - Case B1 and Case B2. The driver’s eye height is assumed to be 3.5 feet while in a vehicle at an intersection 15 feet back from the projection of the curb line. The object height is assumed to be 3.5 feet. A copy of the reference material is available in Appendix I. Exhibit O shows the intersection sight distance analysis at the intersection of the project driveway at Lower Azusa Road. The required intersection sight distance for this driveway is 445 feet for both left and right turns out of the driveway. This sight distance is based upon full access driveways, without access restrictions. The speed limit of Lower Azusa Road, adjacent to the site is 40 miles per hour. Per the sight distance standards, a limited use area should be established and maintained to provide a clear line of sight for vehicles negotiating this intersection. Trees, bushes, and architectural décor should not block the line of sight requirements at these intersections. Currently, the existing landscaping and signage along Lower Azusa Road allows for sufficient sight distance for a vehicle to turn left and right out of the project access point. As is the case for any roadway design, Temple City should periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the site once the project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory. E. Conclusions Based upon this review, the proposed single-family residential townhomes project can be accommodated in Temple City. The project will not have a significant impact 7-4 on the study area intersections and it is recommended that the project be implemented with the recommendations listed in this report. This report has been prepared in accordance with Los Angeles County Traffic Impact Report Guidelines, 1997. A copy of these guidelines is provided in Appendix J. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Exhibits ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Tables L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM • Lower Azusa Road (EW) TS 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.458 0.448 A A • Lower Azusa Road (EW) TS 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.674 0.767 B C 1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement 2 3 TS = Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop TABLE 1 Level of ServiceSouthbound Eastbound Westbound Intersection Approach Lane(s)1 Critical V/C Ratio2 or DelayNorthbound Intersection Analysis For Existing (Adjusted) Conditions When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the through movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 8.0. Per the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology, overall volume to capacity ratios and levels of service are shown for intersections controlled by traffic signals. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) methodology was used to analyze stop controlled intersections. Intersection Traffic Control3 Encinita Avenue (NS) at: Temple City Boulevard (NS) at: J:\RKtables\RK10064TB.xls JN:1445-2013-01 Land Use Units2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Residential Condo/Townhouse 230 DU 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 5.81 2 DU = Dwelling Units 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 9th Edition, 2012 (Trip Code 230). TABLE 2 Trip Generation Rates1 AM PM Peak Hour ITE Code J:\RKtables\RK10064TB.xls JN:1445-2013-01 Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily Townhomes / Condominiums 74 DU 6 27 33 26 13 39 430 2 DU = Dwelling Units 1 Source: LA County Trip Generation Guidelines TABLE 3 Project Trip Generation1 Units2Quantity AM PM Peak Hour Proposed Land Use J:\RKtables\RK10064TB.xls JN:1445-2013-01 Land Use Units2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily General Light Industrial TSF 0.810 0.110 0.920 0.120 0.850 0.970 6.970 88% 12% 100% 12% 88% 100% -- 78.60% 78.60% 78.60% 78.60% 78.60% 78.60% 78.60% 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.637 0.086 0.723 0.094 0.668 0.762 5.478 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.097 0.013 0.110 0.014 0.102 0.116 0.836 3.90% 3.90% 3.90% 3.90% 3.90% 3.90% 3.90% 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.063 0.009 0.072 0.009 0.066 0.076 0.544 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.231 0.031 0.262 0.034 0.242 0.276 1.986 0.637 0.086 0.723 0.094 0.668 0.762 5.478 0.097 0.013 0.110 0.014 0.102 0.116 0.836 0.063 0.009 0.072 0.009 0.066 0.076 0.544 0.231 0.031 0.262 0.034 0.242 0.276 1.986 Building Size: 502.39 TSF 1 Source: RBF Consulting, Temple Palms Traffic Impact Analysis, March 2011 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Source: ITE Trip Generation, 9th Ed./National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) Adjusted Rates 4 Inbound/Outbound Splits per ITE Trip Generation, 9th Ed., 2012 5 Recommended Vehicle Mix Percentages per City of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study for Heavy Warehouse uses, August 2003 (Page 40) 6 Recommended PCE Factor per Los Angeles County direction, 2013 Trip Generation Rates3 PCE Inbound / Outbound Splits 4 Passenger Car Equivalent Rates Calculations Recommended Mix (%)5 PCE Rates 3-Axle Trucks Passenger Cars Recommended Mix (%)5 PCE Factor6 PCE Rates Recommended Mix (%)5 PCE Factor6 2-Axle Trucks 4-Axle+ Trucks PCE Rates Passenger Cars 2-Axle Trucks Final Rates (In Passenger Car Equivalents) 3-Axle Trucks PCE Factor6 Recommended Mix (%)5 PCE Factor6 4-Axle Trucks PCE Rates TABLE 4 Cumulative Project Trip Generation Rates1 AMPM Peak Hour J:\RKtables\RK10064TB.xls JN:1445-2013-01 In Out Total In Out Total 1 General Light Industrial 502.386 TSF 407 55 462 58 429 487 3,502 In Out Total In Out Total Daily 320 44 364 46 337 38 2752 43 6 49 6 45 51 368 31 4 35 4 33 37 266 129 18 147 19 136 155 1114 523 72 595 75 551 626 4,500 Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily 2 Discount Supermarket 182.429 TSF 268 194 462 761 761 1,522 16,575 268 194 462 761 761 1,522 16,575 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet DU= Dwelling Units 3 Source: City of El Monte Economic Development, August 2013. Cumulative Project Trip Generation TABLE 5 ITE TRIP GENERATION Cumulative Zone 4127 & 4213 Temple City Boulevard, Temple Palms Business Park (El Monte) Land Use1 Land Use Quantity Units2 Weekday Peak Hour PM AM PM ITE TRIP GENERATION IN PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENTS Vehicle Mix AM PM Daily Weekday Peak Hour Passenger Cars Final Trip Generation (In Passenger Car Equivalents) 2-Axle Trucks 3-Axle Trucks 4-Axle+ Trucks Total Zone 2 1 High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Source: ITE Trip Generation, 9th Ed./National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) Adjusted Rates. 4000 Arden Drive ,Walmart Superstore (El Monte) Land Use3 Cumulative Zone Quantity Units2 Peak Hour AM J:\RKtables\RK10064TB.xls JN:1445-2013-01 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM • Lower Azusa Road (EW) TS 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.472 0.461 A A • Lower Azusa Road (EW) TS 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.694 0.790 B C 1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; >> = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement 2 3 TS = Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 8.0. Per the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology, overall volume to capacity ratios and levels of service are shown for intersections controlled by traffic signals. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) methodology was used to analyze stop controlled intersections. Intersection Analysis For Existing Plus Ambient Growth Conditions TABLE 6 Encinita Avenue (NS) at: Temple City Boulevard (NS) at: Northbound Southbound Eastbound When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where "1" is indicated for the through movement and "0"s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. Critical V/C Ratio2 or Delay Level of ServiceWestbound Intersection Traffic Control3 Intersection Approach Lane(s)1 J:\RKtables\RK10064TB.xls JN:1445-2013-01 L T R L T R L T R L T R A M P M A M P M A M P M A M P M • L o w e r A z u s a R o a d ( E W ) T S 0 . 5 0 . 5 1 . 0 0 . 5 0 . 5 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 5 0 . 5 1 . 0 1 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 4 7 7 0 . 4 6 6 A A 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 5 N O N O • L o w e r A z u s a R o a d ( E W ) CS S 0 . 5 0 . 0 0 . 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 5 1 . 5 0 . 0 1 7 . 4 2 1 . 2 C C N / A N / A N / A N / A • L o w e r A z u s a R o a d ( E W ) TS 1 . 0 2 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 5 0 . 5 1 . 0 2 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 6 9 8 0 . 7 9 1 B C 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 1 N O N O 1 L = L e f t ; T = T h r o u g h ; R = R i g h t ; > = R i g h t T u r n O v e r l a p ; > > = F r e e R i g h t T u r n ; Bo l d = I m p r o v e m e n t 2 3 TS = T r a f f i c S i g n a l CS S = C r o s s S t r e e t S t o p 4 Pe r t h e C o u n t y o f L o s A n g e l e s g u i d e l i n e s , t h e i m p a c t i s c o n s i d e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t i f t h e p r o j e c t r e l a t e d i n c r e a s e i n t h e v o l u m e t o c a p a c i t y ( V / C ) r a t i o e q u a l s o r e x c e e d s t h e th r e s h o l d " : L O S C = 0 . 0 4 o r m o r e ; L O S D = 0 . 0 2 o r m o r e ; L O S E / F = 0 . 0 1 o r m o r e . T h e r e a r e n o g u i d e l i n e s f o r u n s i g n a l i z e d i n t e r s e c t i o n s a n a l y z e d w i t h H C M M e t h o d o l o g y pr o v i d e d b y L A C o u n t y . Pr o j e c t A c c e s s ( N S ) a t : In t e r s e c t i o n A n a l y s i s F o r E x i s t i n g P l u s A m b i e n t G r o w t h a n d P r o j e c t T r a f f i c C o n d i t i o n s TA B L E 7 Wh e n a r i g h t t u r n l a n e i s d e s i g n a t e d , t h e l a n e c a n e i t h e r b e s t r i p e d o r u n s t r i p e d . T o f u n c t i o n a s a r i g h t t u r n l a n e t h e r e m u s t b e s u f f i c i e n t w i d t h f o r r i g h t t u r n i n g v e h i c l e s t o tr a v e l o u t s i d e t h e t h r o u g h l a n e s . W h e r e " 1 " i s i n d i c a t e d f o r t h e t h r o u g h m o v e m e n t a n d " 0 " s a r e i n d i c a t e d f o r R / L m o v e m e n t s , t h e R a n d / o r L t u r n s a r e s h a r e d w i t h t h e t h r o u g h mo v e m e n t . An a l y s i s S o f t w a r e : T r a f f i x , V e r s i o n 8 . 0 . P e r t h e I n t e r s e c t i o n C a p a c i t y U t i l i z a t i o n m e t h o d o l o g y , o v e r a l l v o l u m e t o c a p a c i t y r a t i o s a n d l e v e l s o f s e r v i c e a r e s h o w n f o r i n t e r s e c t i o n s co n t r o l l e d b y t r a f f i c s i g n a l s . H i g h w a y C a p a c i t y M a n u a l ( H C M 2 0 0 0 ) m e t h o d o l o g y w a s u s e d t o a n a l y z e s t o p c o n t r o l l e d i n t e r s e c t i o n s . Significant Impact 4 Project Increase in Significant Impact En c i n i t a A v e n u e ( N S ) a t : Te m p l e C i t y B o u l e v a r d ( N S ) a t : In t e r s e c t i o n Tr a f f i c Co n t r o l 3 Cr i t i c a l V / C Ra t i o 2 or De l a y Le v e l o f Se r v i c e No r t h b o u n d S o u t h b o u n d E a s t b o u n d W e s t b o u n d In t e r s e c t i o n A p p r o a c h L a n e ( s ) 1 J :\ R K t a b l e s \ R K 1 0 0 6 4 T B . x l s J N: 1 4 4 5 - 2 0 1 3 - 0 1 L T R L T R L T R L T R A M P M A M P M A M P M • L o w e r A z u s a R o a d ( E W ) T S 0 . 5 0 . 5 1 . 0 0 . 5 0 . 5 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 5 0 . 5 1 . 0 1 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 4 9 6 0 . 4 7 4 A A N O N O • L o w e r A z u s a R o a d ( E W ) C S S 0 . 5 0 . 0 0 . 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 5 1 . 5 0 . 0 1 8 . 9 2 2 . 4 C C N / A N / A • L o w e r A z u s a R o a d ( E W ) T S 1 . 0 2 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 5 0 . 5 1 . 0 2 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 7 2 8 0 . 8 2 7 C D N O N O 1 L = L e f t ; T = T h r o u g h ; R = R i g h t ; > = R i g h t T u r n O v e r l a p ; > > = F r e e R i g h t T u r n ; Bo l d = I m p r o v e m e n t 2 3 TS = T r a f f i c S i g n a l CS S = C r o s s S t r e e t S t o p 4 Significant Impact In t e r s e c t i o n A n a l y s i s F o r E x i s t i n g W i t h A m b i e n t G r o w t h P l u s P r o j e c t a n d C u m u l a t i v e T r a f f i c C o n d i t i o n s TA B L E 8 Pe r t h e C o u n t y o f L o s A n g e l e s g u i d e l i n e s , t h e i m p a c t i s c o n s i d e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t i f t h e p r o j e c t r e l a t e d i n c r e a s e i n t h e v o l u m e t o c a p a c i t y ( V / C ) r a t i o eq u a l s o r e x c e e d s t h e t h r e s h o l d " : L O S C = 0 . 0 4 o r m o r e ; L O S D = 0 . 0 2 o r m o r e ; L O S E / F = 0 . 0 1 o r m o r e . S e e T a b l e 7 f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e a n a l y s i s r e s u l t s . An a l y s i s S o f t w a r e : T r a f f i x , V e r s i o n 8 . 0 . P e r t h e I n t e r s e c t i o n C a p a c i t y U t i l i z a t i o n m e t h o d o l o g y , o v e r a l l v o l u m e t o c a p a c i t y r a t i o s a n d l e v e l s o f s e r v i c e ar e s h o w n f o r i n t e r s e c t i o n s c o n t r o l l e d b y t r a f f i c s i g n a l s . H i g h w a y C a p a c i t y M a n u a l ( H C M 2 0 0 0 ) m e t h o d o l o g y w a s u s e d t o a n a l y z e s to p c o n t r o l l e d in t e r s e c t i o n s . En c i n i t a A v e n u e ( N S ) a t : Pr o j e c t A c c e s s ( N S ) a t : Cr i t i c a l V / C Ra t i o 2 or De l a y Level of Service Te m p l e C i t y B o u l e v a r d ( N S ) a t : Wh e n a r i g h t t u r n l a n e i s d e s i g n a t e d , t h e l a n e c a n e i t h e r b e s t r i p e d o r u n s t r i p e d . T o f u n c t i o n a s a r i g h t t u r n l a n e t h e r e m u s t b e s u f f i c i e n t w i d t h f o r ri g h t t u r n i n g v e h i c l e s t o t r a v e l o u t s i d e t h e t h r o u g h l a n e s . W h e r e " 1 " i s i n d i c a t e d f o r t h e t h r o u g h m o v e m e n t a n d " 0 " s a r e i n d i c a t e d f o r R / L mo v e m e n t s , t h e R a n d / o r L t u r n s a r e s h a r e d w i t h t h e t h r o u g h m o v e m e n t . In t e r s e c t i o n Tr a f f i c Co n t r o l 3 In t e r s e c t i o n A p p r o a c h L a n e ( s ) 1 No r t h b o u n d S o u t h b o u n d E a s t b o u n d W e s t b o u n d J :\ R K t a b l e s \ R K 1 0 0 6 4 T B . x l s J N: 1 4 4 5 - 2 0 1 3 - 0 1 AM P M A M P M A M P M A M P M A M P M A M P M A M P M A M P M A M P M • L o w e r A z u s a R o a d ( E W ) 0 . 4 5 8 0 . 4 4 8 A A 0 . 4 7 2 0 . 4 6 1 A A 0 . 4 7 7 0 . 4 6 6 A A 0 . 4 9 6 0 . 4 7 4 A A N O N O • L o w e r A z u s a R o a d ( E W ) N/ A N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A 1 7 . 4 2 1 . 2 C C 1 8 . 9 2 2 . 4 C C N O N O • L o w e r A z u s a R o a d ( E W ) 0. 6 7 4 0 . 7 6 7 B C 0 . 6 9 4 0 . 7 9 0 B C 0 . 6 9 7 0 . 7 9 1 B C 0 . 7 2 8 0 . 8 2 7 C D N O N O 1 2 An a l y s i s S o f t w a r e : T r a f f i x , V e r s i o n 8 . 0 . P e r t h e I n t e r s e c t i o n C a p a c i t y U t i l i z a t i o n m e t h o d o l o g y , o v e r a l l v o l u m e t o c a p a c i t y r a t i o s a n d l e v e l s o f s e r v i c e a r e sh o w n f o r i n t e r s e c t i o n s c o n t r o l l e d b y t r a f f i c s i g n a l s . H i g h w a y C a p a c i t y M a n u a l ( H C M 2 0 0 0 ) m e t h o d o l o g y w a s u s e d t o a n a l y z e s t o p controlled intersections. Pe r t h e C o u n t y o f L o s A n g e l e s g u i d e l i n e s , t h e i m p a c t i s c o n s i d e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t i f t h e p r o j e c t r e l a t e d i n c r e a s e i n t h e v o l u m e t o c a p a c i t y ( V / C ) r a t i o e q u a l s o r ex c e e d s t h e t h r e s h o l d " : L O S C = 0 . 0 4 o r m o r e ; L O S D = 0 . 0 2 o r m o r e ; L O S E / F = 0 . 0 1 o r m o r e . In t e r s e c t i o n In t e r s e c t i o n A n a l y s i s Fo r E x i s t i n g P l u s Am b i e n t G r o w t h Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s Te m p l e C i t y B o u l e v a r d ( N S ) a t : Cr i t i c a l V / C Ra t i o 2 or D e l a y Level of Service In t e r s e c t i o n A n a l y s i s Ex i s t i n g P l u s A mb i e n t G r o w t h a n d Pr o j e c t In t e r s e c t i o n A n a l y s i s F o r Ex i s t i n g W i t h A m b i e n t Gr o w t h P l u s P r o j e c t a n d Cu m u l a t i v e T r a f f i c Co n d i t i o n s Le v e l o f Se r v i c e Su m m a r y I n t e r s e c t i o n A n a l y s i s TA B L E 9 Significant Impact Pr o j e c t A c c e s s ( N S ) a t : Le v e l o f Se r v i c e Cr i t i c a l V / C Ra t i o 2 or De l a y Cr i t i c a l V / C Ra t i o 2 or De l a y En c i n i t a A v e n u e ( N S ) a t : Le v e l o f Se r v i c e Cr i t i c a l V / C Ra t i o 2 o r De l a y J :\ R K t a b l e s \ R K 1 0 0 6 4 T B . x l s J N: 1 4 4 5 - 2 0 1 3 - 0 1 1 2 It should be noted that the project does not significantly impact this intersection. Temple City Boulevard (NS) • Lower Azusa Road (EW) No intersection improvements are required to be completed by the project because the project does not have a significant impact to study area intersections. None Required1 None Required1 None Required2 None Required2 Project Access (NS) • Lower Azusa Road (EW) Encinita Avenue (NS) • Lower Azusa Road (EW) TABLE 10 Required Intersection Improvements Existing With Ambient Growth Plus Project and Cumulative Traffic Conditions Existing Plus Ambient Growth and Project ConditionsIntersection None Required1 None Required1 J:\RKtables\RK10064TB.xls JN:1445-2013-01 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Appendices Appendix A Existing Traffic Count Worksheets Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:TUESDAY Date:08/20/2013 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:010010120120 7:00 AM 3 12 13 8 18 19 7 30 3 9 121 14 257 7:15 AM 2 16 8 18 26 20 11 58 3 12 162 6 342 7:30 AM 4 1 31 61 42 22 7 9 6 0 5 1 6 1 5 0 1 2348 7:45 AM 3 1 52 41 92 52 0 9 9 5 3 2 3 1 6 5 1 6417 8:00 AM 2 1 91 82 43 22 11 18 6 8 1 9 1 7 4 1 7431 8:15 AM 3 1 82 02 03 52 72 17 9 6 2 7 1 5 8 1 1425 8:30 AM 3 1 92 31 84 02 21 58 2 3 3 3 1 6 4 2 0442 8:45 AM 3 3 12 11 53 02 32 79 6 2 2 8 1 7 2 1 8466 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :23 143 143 136 228 179 110 586 33 167 1266 114 3128 APPROACH %'s :7.44% 46.28% 46.28% 25.05% 41.99% 32.97% 15.09% 80.38% 4.53% 10.80% 81.84% 7.37% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :800 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :11 87 82 77 137 93 74 343 19 107 668 66 1764 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.946 CONTROL :Signalized 0.964 WESTBOUND NS/EW Streets: 0.818 0.936 0.872 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND Encinita Ave Encinita Ave EASTBOUND AM Lower Azusa RdLower Azusa Rd Project ID: City: CA13_5418_001 City of Temple City Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:TUESDAY Date:08/20/2013 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:010010120120 4:00 PM 5 3 94 01 53 61 21 7 1 1 98 1 09 31 5409 4:15 PM 2 2 93 62 62 61 32 3 1 2 47 2 1 1 1 3 1 7437 4:30 PM 2 2 93 81 72 71 91 0 1 2 27 1 6 1 0 8 1 7412 4:45 PM 2 4 24 01 42 51 01 5 1 3 11 2 19 21 9412 5:00 PM 4 5 15 32 22 52 02 9 1 5 16 1 29 61 4483 5:15 PM 3 5 55 22 42 41 92 5 1 4 63 1 89 72 5491 5:30 PM 1 50 48 9 37 19 30 116 2 25 106 22 465 5:45 PM 4 6 96 42 34 42 01 5 1 3 75 2 99 62 6532 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :23 364 371 150 244 132 164 1046 39 152 801 155 3641 APPROACH %'s :3.03% 48.02% 48.94% 28.52% 46.39% 25.10% 13.13% 83.75% 3.12% 13.72% 72.29% 13.99% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :500 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :12 225 217 78 130 78 99 550 16 84 395 87 1971 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.926 CONTROL : Project ID:CA13_5418_001 City:City of Temple City Signalized Lower Azusa RdNS/EW Streets:Lower Azusa Rd PM Encinita Ave 0.8940.828 0.925 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND Encinita Ave 0.822 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:TUESDAY Date:08/20/2013 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:120120120120 7:00 AM 9 98 8 20 127 12 13 33 7 53 150 19 549 7:15 AM 10 134 2 19 132 13 13 60 9 54 169 29 644 7:30 AM 19 146 3 25 202 19 11 63 13 53 156 29 739 7:45 AM 25 116 17 30 175 17 22 97 17 59 183 29 787 8:00 AM 19 114 6 37 186 21 20 97 12 66 178 22 778 8:15 AM 13 118 5 32 195 23 14 82 17 81 161 19 760 8:30 AM 16 119 1 30 191 22 16 100 16 73 216 33 833 8:45 AM 10 117 7 32 145 21 23 85 7 54 141 29 671 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :121 962 49 225 1353 148 132 617 98 493 1354 209 5761 APPROACH %'s :10.69% 84.98% 4.33% 13.04% 78.39% 8.57% 15.58% 72.85% 11.57% 23.98% 65.86% 10.17% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :745 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :73 467 29 129 747 83 72 376 62 279 738 103 3158 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.948 CONTROL :Signalized 0.870 WESTBOUND NS/EW Streets: 0.900 0.959 0.938 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND Temple City Blvd Temple City Blvd EASTBOUND AM Lower Azusa RdLower Azusa Rd Project ID: City: CA13_5418_002 City of Temple City Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:TUESDAY Date:08/20/2013 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:120120120120 4:00 PM 20 142 9 39 104 24 31 164 8 59 115 29 744 4:15 PM 9 141 13 36 101 11 24 143 3 60 117 21 679 4:30 PM 11 152 9 51 132 15 31 160 5 71 139 34 810 4:45 PM 18 177 10 56 126 13 33 151 6 59 89 32 770 5:00 PM 12 186 11 43 137 15 51 189 9 61 115 31 860 5:15 PM 30 222 7 58 133 14 42 169 8 55 106 15 859 5:30 PM 21 222 13 37 127 23 42 159 13 71 145 38 911 5:45 PM 22 208 8 34 119 14 29 162 8 76 131 31 842 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :143 1450 80 354 979 129 283 1297 60 512 957 231 6475 APPROACH %'s :8.55% 86.67% 4.78% 24.21% 66.96% 8.82% 17.26% 79.09% 3.66% 30.12% 56.29% 13.59% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :500 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :85 838 39 172 516 66 164 679 38 263 497 115 3472 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.953 CONTROL : Project ID:CA13_5418_002 City:City of Temple City Signalized Lower Azusa RdNS/EW Streets:Lower Azusa Rd PM Temple City Blvd 0.8850.929 0.861 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND Temple City Blvd 0.920 Appendix B Existing (Adjusted) Traffic Count Worksheets Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:TUESDAY Date:08/20/2013 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:010010120120 7:00 AM 3 12 13 8 18 19 7 30 3 9 121 14 257 7:15 AM 2 16 8 18 26 20 11 58 3 12 162 6 342 7:30 AM 4 1 31 61 42 22 7 9 6 0 5 1 6 1 5 0 1 2348 7:45 AM 3 1 52 41 92 52 0 9 9 5 3 2 3 1 6 5 1 6417 8:00 AM 2 1 91 82 43 22 11 18 6 8 1 9 1 7 4 1 7431 8:15 AM 3 1 82 02 03 52 72 17 9 6 2 7 1 5 8 1 1425 8:30 AM 3 1 92 31 84 02 21 58 2 3 3 3 1 6 4 2 0442 8:45 AM 3 3 12 11 53 02 32 79 6 2 2 8 1 7 2 1 8466 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :23 143 143 136 228 179 110 586 33 167 1266 114 3128 APPROACH %'s :7.44% 46.28% 46.28% 25.05% 41.99% 32.97% 15.09% 80.38% 4.53% 10.80% 81.84% 7.37% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :800 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :12 96 90 85 151 102 81 377 21 118 735 73 1941 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.946 CONTROL : Project ID: City: CA13_5418_001 City of Temple City NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND Encinita Ave Encinita Ave EASTBOUND AM (ADJUSTED) Lower Azusa RdLower Azusa RdNS/EW Streets: 0.818 0.936 0.872 Signalized 0.964 WESTBOUND Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:TUESDAY Date:08/20/2013 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:010010120120 4:00 PM 5 3 94 01 53 61 21 7 1 1 98 1 09 31 5409 4:15 PM 2 2 93 62 62 61 32 3 1 2 47 2 1 1 1 3 1 7437 4:30 PM 2 2 93 81 72 71 91 0 1 2 27 1 6 1 0 8 1 7412 4:45 PM 2 4 24 01 42 51 01 5 1 3 11 2 19 21 9412 5:00 PM 4 5 15 32 22 52 02 9 1 5 16 1 29 61 4483 5:15 PM 3 5 55 22 42 41 92 5 1 4 63 1 89 72 5491 5:30 PM 1 50 48 9 37 19 30 116 2 25 106 22 465 5:45 PM 4 6 96 42 34 42 01 5 1 3 75 2 99 62 6532 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :23 364 371 150 244 132 164 1046 39 152 801 155 3641 APPROACH %'s :3.03% 48.02% 48.94% 28.52% 46.39% 25.10% 13.13% 83.75% 3.12% 13.72% 72.29% 13.99% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :500 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :13 236 228 82 137 82 104 578 17 88 415 91 2071 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.926 CONTROL : 0.925 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND Encinita Ave 0.822 Signalized Lower Azusa RdNS/EW Streets:Lower Azusa Rd PM (ADJUSTED) Encinita Ave 0.8940.828 Project ID:CA13_5418_001 City:City of Temple City Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:TUESDAY Date:08/20/2013 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:120120120120 7:00 AM 9 98 8 20 127 12 13 33 7 53 150 19 549 7:15 AM 10 134 2 19 132 13 13 60 9 54 169 29 644 7:30 AM 19 146 3 25 202 19 11 63 13 53 156 29 739 7:45 AM 25 116 17 30 175 17 22 97 17 59 183 29 787 8:00 AM 19 114 6 37 186 21 20 97 12 66 178 22 778 8:15 AM 13 118 5 32 195 23 14 82 17 81 161 19 760 8:30 AM 16 119 1 30 191 22 16 100 16 73 216 33 833 8:45 AM 10 117 7 32 145 21 23 85 7 54 141 29 671 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :121 962 49 225 1353 148 132 617 98 493 1354 209 5761 APPROACH %'s :10.69% 84.98% 4.33% 13.04% 78.39% 8.57% 15.58% 72.85% 11.57% 23.98% 65.86% 10.17% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :745 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :80 514 28 142 822 91 79 414 68 265 812 113 3428 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.948 CONTROL : Project ID: City: CA13_5418_002 City of Temple City NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND Temple City Blvd Temple City Blvd EASTBOUND AM (Adjusted) Lower Azusa RdLower Azusa RdNS/EW Streets: 0.900 0.959 0.938 Signalized 0.870 WESTBOUND Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Day:TUESDAY Date:08/20/2013 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:120120120120 4:00 PM 20 142 9 39 104 24 31 164 8 59 115 29 744 4:15 PM 9 141 13 36 101 11 24 143 3 60 117 21 679 4:30 PM 11 152 9 51 132 15 31 160 5 71 139 34 810 4:45 PM 18 177 10 56 126 13 33 151 6 59 89 32 770 5:00 PM 12 186 11 43 137 15 51 189 9 61 115 31 860 5:15 PM 30 222 7 58 133 14 42 169 8 55 106 15 859 5:30 PM 21 222 13 37 127 23 42 159 13 71 145 38 911 5:45 PM 22 208 8 34 119 14 29 162 8 76 131 31 842 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :143 1450 80 354 979 129 283 1297 60 512 957 231 6475 APPROACH %'s :8.55% 86.67% 4.78% 24.21% 66.96% 8.82% 17.26% 79.09% 3.66% 30.12% 56.29% 13.59% nb a nb d sb a sb d eb a eb d wb a nb d PEAK HR START TIME :500 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :89 880 37 181 542 69 172 713 40 250 522 121 3616 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.953 CONTROL : 0.861 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND Temple City Blvd 0.920 Signalized Lower Azusa RdNS/EW Streets:Lower Azusa Rd PM (Adjusted) Temple City Blvd 0.8850.929 Project ID:CA13_5418_002 City:City of Temple City Appendix C Existing (Adjusted) Level of Service Analysis Worksheets Appendix H HCM Queuing Analysis Worksheets Appendix I AASHTO Sight Distance Guidelines Appendix J County of Los Angeles Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines I. Introduction The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works has established the following Guidelines for the preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) reports. The purpose of these Guidelines is to establish procedures to ensure consistency of analysis and the adequacy of information presented and timely review by County staff. It is strongly recommended that the applicant's traffic engineer consult with County staff before beginning the study to establish the scope and basic assumptions of the study and any deviations from these Guidelines to avoid unnecessary delays or revisions. For assistance in the TIA scoping process, the Traffic and Lighting Division, Traffic Studies Unit, can be contacted at (626) 300- 4820. II. Requirements Generally, the Department staff is concerned with adverse impacts on traffic if: 1. Traffic generated by a project considered alone or cumulatively with other related projects, when added to existing traffic volumes, exceeds certain capacity thresholds of an intersection or roadway, contributes to an unacceptable level of service (LOS), or exacerbates an existing congested condition. 2. Project generated traffic interferes with the existing traffic flow (e.g., due to the location of access roads, driveways, and parking facilities). 3. Proposed access locations do not provide for adequate safety (e.g., due to limited visibility on curving roadways). 4. Nonresidential uses generate commuter or truck traffic through a residential area. 5. Project generated traffic significantly increases on a residential street and alters its residential character. A traffic report must be prepared by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. A traffic report is generally needed if a project generates over 500 trips per day or where other possible adverse impacts as discussed in the Analysis and Impact Section (see page 4) of these Guidelines are identified. Before a full review is conducted, the County staff will check the completeness of the TIA report using the attached check list (Exhibit A). If the report is missing any of the check list items, it will be returned for revision. III. TIA Report Contents A. Project Description The following information is required: 1. A description of the project, including those factors which quantify traffic generators, e.g., dwelling units, square feet of office space, persons to be employed, restaurant seats, acres of raw land, etc. For residential developments, the description should indicate the type of residence, (e.g., one level or townhouse condominiums, and if its use is for families, adults or retirees). 2. A plot plan showing proposed driveways, streets, internal circulation, and any new parking facilities on the project site. 3. A vicinity map showing the site location and the study area relative to other transportation systems. 4. A brief history of the projects that are part of the phased Master Plan or a parent tract/parcel map. B. Transportation Circulation Setting The following information is required: 1. Existing and Proposed Site Uses A description of the permitted and/or proposed uses of the project site in terms of the various zoning and land use categories of the County, and the status and the usage of any facilities currently existing on the site. 2. Existing and Proposed Roadways and Intersections A description of existing streets and roadways, both within the project site (if any) and in the surrounding area. Include information on the roadway classifications (per the Highway Plan), the number of lanes and roadway widths, signalized intersections, separate turn lanes, and the signal phases for turning movements. Existing daily directional and peak-hour through and turning traffic volumes on the roadways surrounding and/or logically associated with the project site, including Secondary and Major highways and freeways. Local streets affected by the project should also be shown. Each report shall include appendices providing count data used in the preparation of the report. The source and date of the traffic volume information shall be indicated. Count data should not be over one year old. Since peak volumes vary considerably, a ten percent daily variation is not uncommon, especially on recreational routes or roadways near shopping centers; therefore, representative peak-hour volumes are to be chosen carefully. All assumed roadways and intersections or any other transportation circulation improvements must be identified and discussed. The discussion should include the scope and the status of the assumed improvements including the construction schedule and financing plan. It should be noted that all assumed roadways and intersections or any other transportation circulation improvements will be made a condition of approval for the project to be in place prior to the issuance of building permits. If assumed improvements do not get built on time due to an unforeseeable condition, traffic conditions for a different assumed highway network or other mitigation measures will be considered if a traffic study is submitted with a different assumed network or other measures are recommended to mitigate the traffic impact in question. C. Analysis and Impact The following information is required: 1. Trip Generation Analysis Tabulate the estimated number of daily trips and a.m. and p.m. peak-hour trips generated by the proposed project entering and exiting the site. Trip generation factors and source are to be included. The trip generation rates contained in the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual should generally be used, except in the case of condominiums/townhomes when the following rates should be used per unit: A.M.-Peak P.M.-Peak ADT Outgoing/Incoming Outgoing/Incoming Condominiums/ Townhomes 8.0 0.48/0.06 0.26/0.47 There may be a trip reduction due to internal and/or pass-by trips. Internal trip reduction can only be applied for mixed-use types of developments and pass-by trip reduction for retail/commercial types of developments. Internal or pass-by trip reduction assumptions will require analytical support based on verifiable actual similar developments to demonstrate how the figures were derived and will require approval by the County. 2. Trip Distribution Diagrams showing the percentages and volumes of the project and nearby project's a.m. and p.m. peak-hour trips logically distributed on the roadway system must be provided. The Regional Daily Trip Distribution Factors (Exhibit D-3) contained in the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Land Use Analysis Guidelines shall be referenced for regional trip distribution assumptions. If it is assumed that new routes will alter traffic patterns, adequate backup including traffic distribution maps must be provided showing how and why these routes will alter traffic patterns. The study area should include arterial highways, freeways, and intersections generally within a one-mile radius of the project site. Note: This distance may be greater than one-mile for rural areas depending on the proximity to nearby signalized intersections and the availability of master plan access routes. 3. Related Projects List A list of related projects that are approximately within a one-and-a- half mile radius of the project site and would reasonably be expected to be in place by the project's build out year must be included in the report. Related projects shall include all pending, approved, recorded, or constructed projects that are not occupied at the time of the existing traffic counts. The County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning (DRP) and other public agencies (if necessary) should be contacted to obtain the latest listings. A table and a map showing the status, project/zone change/conditional use permit/parcel map/tract number, and the location of each project must be provided. For a computer printout of the listing of all filed projects within the County, Land Development Management Section of the DRP, at (213) 974-6481 can be contacted. 4. LOS Analysis If it appears that the project's generated traffic alone or together with other projects in the area could worsen the LOS of an intersection or roadway, a "before" and "after" LOS analysis is necessary. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) or Critical Movement Analysis are two methods often used to assess existing and future LOS at intersections. If the ICU planning method is used, a maximum of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane should be used (2,880 vehicles per hour should be used for dual left-turn lanes) and a ten percent yellow clearance cycle should be included. Intersection LOS analysis and calculation work sheets, as well as diagrams showing turning volumes shall be included in the report for the following traffic conditions. (a) Existing traffic; (b) Existing traffic plus ambient growth to the year the project will be completed (preproject); (c) Traffic in (b) plus project traffic; (d) Traffic in (c) with the proposed mitigation measures (if necessary); (e) Traffic in (c) plus the cumulative traffic of other known developments; and (f) Traffic in (e) with the proposed mitigation measures (if necessary). The project's impact on two-lane roadways should also be analyzed for all of the above traffic conditions if those two-lane roadways are used for access. LOS service analysis contained in the Highway Capacity Analysis, Chapter 8, Two-Lane Highways, should be used to evaluate the project=s impact. For simplified analysis, use the established significant impact thresholds for two- lane roadways as shown on page 6. 5. Significant Impact Threshold For intersections, the impact is considered significant if the project related increase in the volume to capacity (v/c) ratio equals or exceeds the threshold shown below. INTERSECTIONS Preproject LOS V/C Project V/C Increase C 0.71 to 0.80 0.04 or more D 0.81 to 0.90 0.02 or more E/F 0.91 or more 0.01 or more The project is deemed to have a significant impact on two-lane roadways when it adds the following percentages based on LOS of the preproject conditions. TWO-LANE ROADWAYS Percentages Increase in Passenger Car Per Hour (PCPH) by Project Preproject LOS Directional Split Total Capacity (PCPH) C D E/F 50/50 2,800 4 2 1 60/40 2,650 4 2 1 70/30 2,500 4 2 1 80/20 2,300 4 2 1 90/10 2,100 4 2 1 100/0 2,000 4 2 1 6. Analysis Discussion Discuss conclusions regarding the adverse impacts caused by the proposed project on the roadway system. If the cumulative traffic impact of this and other projects require mitigation measures, such as traffic signals, then estimate the percent share using the project percent share formula given in the Section III D of the TIA Guidelines. When the proposed project and other nearby developments are expected to significantly impact adjacent roadways, the developer may be required to enter into a secured agreement to contribute to a benefit district to fund major roadway and bridge improvements in the region. Also, for all recommendations to increase the number of travel lanes on a street or at an intersection as a mitigation measure, the report must clearly identify the impacts associated with such a change such as whether or not additional right of way will be required and whether it is feasible to acquire the right of way based on the level of development of the adjacent land and buildings (if any). Discuss other possible adverse impacts on traffic. Examples of these are: (1) the limited visibility of access points on curved roadways; (2) the need for pavement widening to provide left-turn and right-turn lanes at access points into the proposed project; (3) the impact of increased traffic volumes on local residential streets; and (4) the need for road realignment to improve sight distance. Projects which propose to amend the County=s General Plan Land Use and substantially increase potential traffic generation must provide an analysis of the project at current planned land use versus proposed land use in the build out condition for the project area. The purpose of such analysis is to provide decision makers with the understanding of the planned circulation network=s ability to accommodate additional traffic generation caused by the proposed General Plan Land Use amendments. D. Traffic Models and Model Generated TIA=s Computerized traffic models are planning tools used to develop future traffic projections based on development growth patterns. The Department currently operates two traffic models, one for the Santa Clarita Valley and another for the Ventura Corridor area. The Department can test proposed development project traffic impacts for the public in these areas for a fee. For assistance in the traffic modeling, the Planning Division, Transportation Planning/Assessments Section, can be contacted at (626) 458- 4351. For TIA=s prepared using data from outside traffic modeling, the following information is required: 1. The type of modeling software used to generate the traffic analysis report data (i.e., TRANPLAN, EMME/2, etc.). 2. The list of land use assumptions by traffic analysis zones (TAZ=s) and their sources used in the traffic model in lieu of a related projects list. 3. A copy of the computerized roadway network assumed to be in place at the time of the project. Streets should be color-coded by street type. Also, TAZ=s and their corresponding centroidal connectors, as well as number of lanes should be displayed. 4. The list of trip generation rates used in the traffic model and their sources. 5. Model runs (plots) identifying both the with and without project scenarios. The volumes displayed on the plots should be in 100's for Average Daily Vehicle Trips (ADT) and 10's for peak-hour plots. E. Traffic Signals The following information is required: Traffic signal warrant analysis using the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Peak-Hour (Figures 9-8 and 9-9 of Caltrans Traffic Manual) and Estimated Average Daily (Figure 9-4 of Caltrans Traffic Manual) Traffic Warrant Analysis should be provided. If the installation of signals is warranted with the addition of the project's traffic, then the installation will be the sole responsibility of the project. If it is warranted with cumulative traffic of the project and other related projects, the following formula should be used to calculate the project percent share. Project Percentage Share = Project Traffic Project+Other Related Projects Traffic The project percent share should be based on the peak-hour volumes that warrant signals. If both peak hours satisfy the installation of signals, the average of the two peak-hour volumes should be used in the percent share analysis. F. Mitigation Measures The following information is required. Identify feasible mitigation measures which would mitigate the project and/or other related projects' significant impacts to a level of insignificance. Also, identify those mitigation measures which will be implemented by others. Those mitigation measures that are assumed to be implemented by others will be made a condition of approval for the project to be in place prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Traffic Engineering Techniques. a. Locate access points to optimize visibility and reduce potential conflict. b. Design parking facilities to avoid queuing into public streets during peak arrival periods. c. Provide additional off-street parking. d. Dedicate visibility easements to assure adequate sight distance at intersections and driveways. e. Signalize or modify traffic signals at intersections. f. Install left-turn phasing and/or multiple turning lanes to accommodate particularly heavy turning movements. g. Widen the pavement to provide left- or right-turn lanes to lessen the interference with the traffic flow.1 h. Widen intersection approaches to provide additional capacity. I. Prohibit left turns to and from the proposed development. j. Restrict on-street parking during peak hours to increase street capacity.1 1 Physical roadway improvements to improve capacity should be considered before considering parking restrictions. 2. Contribute to a benefit district to fund major capital improvements a. Construct a grade separation. b. Improve or construct alternate routes. c. Complete proposed routes shown on the Los Angeles Highway Plan. d. Improve freeway interchanges (bridge, widening, modifications, and etc.). 3. Transportation System Management (TSM) Techniques2 a. Establish flexible working hours. b. Encourage employee use of carpools and public transportation (specific measures must be indicated). c. Establish preferential parking for carpools. d. Restrict truck deliveries to Major and Secondary highways and encourage deliveries during the off-peak hours. e. Establish a monitoring program to ensure that project traffic volumes do not exceed projected traffic demand. Note: When it appears that other jurisdictions will be impacted by a development, the Department will request that the involved jurisdiction also review the TIA. A written response from that jurisdiction should be provided with appropriate follow-up to the lead County agency. G. CMP Guidelines The following information is required: 2 Contributions to a benefit district and/or TSM techniques may not be used to lower LOS in the capacity calculations. Where the project meets the criteria established in the County of Los Angeles' CMP Land Use Analysis Guidelines, a CMP analysis must be provided. A copy of the latest Guidelines will be available upon request. A CMP TIA is required for all projects required to prepare an Environmental Assessment based on local determination or projects requiring a traffic study. The geographic area examined in the TIA must include the following, at a minimum. $ All CMP arterial monitoring intersections (see Exhibit B of the Guidelines), including freeway on- or off-ramp intersections, where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the a.m. or p.m. peak hours. $ Main line freeway monitoring locations (see Exhibit C of the Guidelines) where the project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hours. $ Caltrans must also be consulted to identify other specific locations to be analyzed on the State highway system. If, based on these criteria, the TIA identifies no facilities for study, no further traffic analysis is required. JHC:ce T-2/ACCESS ( 01/07/99) Attach. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES APPENDIX 6 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES 2150 N. ARROWHEAD AVENUE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 TEL (909) 882-3612 • FAX (909) 882-7015 E-MAIL tda@tdaenv.com MEMORANDUM December 20, 2013 From: Tom Dodson To: Mr. Geoffrey Starns Subj: Completion of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Olsen Project, City of Temple City The City of Temple City (City) received one written comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Olsen Project. Because this project does not have any State Responsible or Trustee Agency involvement, the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were not submitted to the State Clearinghouse and no “SCH#” was assigned to this set of documentation. CEQA requires a MND to consist of the Initial Study; copies of any comments, any responses to comments as compiled on the following pages; and any other project related material prepared to address issues evaluated in the Initial Study. For this project, the original Initial Study will be utilized as one component of the Final MND package. The attached responses to comments, combined with the Initial Study, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the MND and Notice of Determination (NOD) forms, constitute the Final MND package that will be used by the City to consider the environmental effects of implementing the proposed project. The following agency submitted comments. This comment letter is addressed in the attached Responses to Comments: 1. South Coast Air Quality Management District Because mitigation measures are required for this project to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required to be adopted by the City Council as one step in the decision-making process. Tom Dodson will be attending the January 7, 2013 public meeting on this project to address any questions that the Council members or other parties may have regarding the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. Do not hesitate to give me a call if you have any questions regarding the contents of this package. Tom Dodson Attachments RESPONSES TO COMMENTS LETTER #1 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 1-1 As the Initial Study was compiled, the issue of diesel particulate matter (DPM) was clearly one of concern. The Health Risk Assessment (HRA) in the Initial Study was very similar to once recently prepared by Giroux & Associates. Thus, based on the similarity in prevailing meteorology, freight train size and number of line-haul engines, the previously prepared Guasti Specific Plan HRA, completed in 2009, is an appropriate prototype to use as a model for the Olsen Project. A copy of the Guasti study is attached to this response. Certain assumptions apply specifically to the Olsen Project site. First, locomotive notch settings are not published by railroads. The 14 trains passing the Olsen site are part of the same 42 trains passing Guasti on the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) track. With adjustments for train volumes, newer data on DPM, new guidance on age sensitivity and small distance adjustment, the Guasti study is directly applicable to Temple City. Further, OEHHA in its Technical Support Document for exposure Assessments and Stochastic Analysis, Final, August, 2012, states as follows: OEHHA is recommending that an exposure duration (residency time) of 30 years be used for individual cancer risk determination for the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) (Table 11.1). This should provide adequate public health protection against individual risk. Note that the 30 year exposure duration starts in the third trimester to accommodate the increased susceptibility of exposures in early life (OEHHA, 2009), and would apply to both the point estimate and stochastic approaches. Reducing the residency time assumption from 70 years to 30 years will however reduce the protection for the population. Thus, we have recommendations below (Section 11.1.3) for specifically evaluating population cancer risk from facility emissions. As supplemental information in the risk assessment for the MEIR scenario, OEHHA is recommending that point estimate and stochastic risk estimates also be presented for the 9 and 70-year exposure durations, both starting in the third trimester. This will help convey the message to the public that cancer risk is proportional to the duration of exposure (i.e., length of residency near the facility). Different communities may have different patterns of residency duration and the pattern with the community may need to be considered by the risk manager. Although the data for determining residency duration is less than perfect, it is likely that 30 years is a reasonable estimate of the 90th or 95th percentile of residency duration in a population. Thus, a 30-year residency time is consistent with recommendations for other risk assessment variates in our model. Based on the above information, the OEHHA recommendation of a 30-year exposure duration was used. Since both the 30- and 70-year exposure assumptions trigger a requirement for mitigation, the analyst concluded that the use of the more reasonable 30-year exposure is reasonable for the proposed project. The mitigation effectiveness of the MERV13 filters is discussed in the attached Guasti report. The report notes that the collection efficiency of a MERV 13 filter is 98% better than unfiltered air. Based on this efficiency, the SCAQMD has partnered with the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to filter the air in multiple schools affected by port- related diesel emissions. The developer will be required to install the MERV13 filters and provide future residents with guidance on how to maintain and manage these systems in the future. ATTACHMENT DIESEL EMISISONS HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT GUASTI PLAZA SPA SEIR CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: David Evans and Associates, Inc. Attn: Josephine Alido 4200 Concours Street, Suite 200 Ontario, CA 91764 Date: June 9, 2009 Project No.: P08-054 HRA P a g e |1 INTRODUCTION This report presents an assessment of potential toxic air contaminant impacts associated with proposed residential occupancy within a portion of the Guasti Plaza Specific Plan in Ontario, California. The analysis area is bounded by the I-10 Freeway to the north, Archibald Avenue to the west, the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) tracks to the south, and Turner Avenue to the east. Airport Drive, surface parking and one of the ONT airport terminals are located directly south beyond the railroad tracks. Freeway trucks and diesel-powered trains are emitters of diesel particulate matter (DPM). DPM is a known carcinogen. Aircraft burn mainly kerosene. Incomplete combustion of kerosene produces visible smoke. Such emissions, however, are not an identified toxic air contaminant (TAC). Airport activities do use diesel-powered equipment in freight idling. However, airport activity diesel exposure risk assessments have found that Guasti Plaza risk levels are very low. Most bus traffic around ONT uses “clean” natural gas. The freeway and the train tracks are therefore the only TAC sources considered in this health risk assessment (HRA). This HRA was prepared in accordance with the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA)Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA 2003a), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis (SCAQMD 2003). As recommended by SCAQMD and California Air Resources Board (CARB) guidance, the HotSpots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) model was used to conduct the HRA. The primary objective of this HRA is to estimate upper-bound incremental excess cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards associated with the proposed residential occupancy. Approved Guasti Plaza land uses will generate negligible amounts of TACs. This HRA thus analyzes the effects of the ambient DPM environment upon the project, and not of the project upon the environment. According to OEHHA, the four steps involved in the risk assessment process are 1) hazard identification, 2) exposure assessment, 3) dose-response assessment, and 4) risk characterization. The following report details the findings of this multiple step analysis process. EXISTING CONDITIONS Toxic air contaminants are gases, liquids, or particles that are emitted into the atmosphere and, under certain conditions, may cause adverse health effects, including cancer, acute non-cancer, and chronic non-cancer effects. OEHHA has compiled the health risk effects for all toxic air pollutants into one document entitled Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values (OEHHA 2005), which was used to convert exposure to a corresponding health risk. In the summer of 2008, the SCAQMD released draft findings of the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES-III) in the South Coast Air Basin. Mates-III contains extensive general P a g e |2 information regarding regional ambient air toxics levels in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). MATES is a multi-level analysis of the probability that exposure to hazardous substances at a given level over a given period of time will make people sick. Health risks may be expressed in terms of cancer probabilities, but may also refer to non-chronic acute illness such as asthma. Probabilistic predictions often incorporate worst-case assumptions that do not reflect real-world human behavior. For example, the standard residential exposure assumption is that a receptor breathes at the 80th percentile rate while located at one single outdoor location for 24-hours per day, 350 days per year, for 70 years, without moving from that spot. Because of actual human mobile behavior, the air pollution exposure risk should properly be evaluated on a regional basis rather than on a unique source-receptor relationship. This standardized exposure assumption is designed to provide a uniform basis for risk assessments as a function of a specific location, and does not constitute an actual personal risk. MATES-III estimates that the average excess cancer risk level from exposure to air toxics for the SCAB as a whole is approximately 1,200 in one million. Mobile sources (e.g. cars, trucks, trains, ships, aircraft, etc.) represent the greatest contributor. About 84 percent of all risk is attributed to diesel particulate matter (DPM). Those estimates were based on the monitoring data collected at ten fixed sites from 2004-2006. The closest MATES-III fixed-site air toxics monitoring station was in Fontana (Arrow Highway). The estimated cancer risk at that station was the highest of any monitoring station at 1,400 in a million. The risk map published in the MITES-III final report (2008) places Guasti Plaza at approximately 1,250 in a million. This is the estimated excess cancer risk (compared to a human lifetime risk of 300,000 in a million from all causes) from breathing ambient air. This value assumes remaining outside for 24-hours per day for 70 years, and that no emissions reductions in DPM will result over the next 70 years. There has been a downward trend in public health risk from toxic air pollution in the last decade. The MATES-II report in 2000 concluded that the basin wide average excess cancer risk was 1,400 in a million. The change from MATES-II was a drop of 17 percent. With a continuing acceleration of DPM controls for both on-and off-road sources, risks will continue to decline. However, risks from air toxic exposure will likely be considered unacceptable for an extended period into the future. TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS Diesel exhaust contains a wide variety of TACs. TAC’s include benzene, 1,3 butadiene, carbonyls and others. However, since diesel accounts for 84 percent of air toxic risk, and the risk is almost exclusively due to inhalation. Inhalation of project-related DPM at the Guasti Plaza site was therefore used as surrogate for public health risk from freeway truck and UPRR train activity. To estimate emissions from freeway truck traffic, existing truck volumes reported by Caltrans were adjusted for minor additional future growth, but the percentage mix of light, medium and heavy trucks was assumed to remain unchanged. Mobile source emission factors were modeled using the Emissions Factors (EMFAC2007) Model (ARB2007). Because the residential exposure scenario is based on 70 years of exposure, emission factors from the EMFAC2007 P a g e |3 model were averaged over the exposure period, assuming the start of operations in 2010. The EMFAC2007 model provides emission factors out to the year 2040. After the year 2040, emission factors were conservatively assumed to remain constant. Train DPM emissions were estimated from NTSB data on train combustion efficiency and current emissions regulations. The average freight train travels 0.13 miles per gallon of diesel burned, and the Tier-1 particulate emissions limit is 3.6 grams per gallon. Train activity DPM emissions thus average 27.7 grams per mile. The EMFAC2007 truck DPM emissions rate, assuming implementation of all required on-road pollution control, will be 0.11 grams per mile. Trains will be approximately 250 times “dirtier” than on-road trucks if no additional DPM rules for trains are adopted. For Guasti Plaza, the tracks at 42 trains per day will generate almost the same DPM burden as the freeway seen as follows: Tracks: 42 trains x 27.7 gram/mile/train = 1163.4 gram/mile Freeway: 12,000 trucks x 0.11 gram/mile/truck = 1,320.0 gram/mile Because the tracks are much closer to proposed residential uses, they dominate the calculated health risk. AIR DISPERSION MODELING Air dispersion modeling was used to predict the downwind concentration of DPM to which residential receptors could be exposed. Air dispersion modeling is dependent on the emissions of diesel particulate matter, the location of sources, and the site-specific meteorology of the impacted area. The air dispersion modeling was performed in accordance with SCAQMD modeling guidelines. Results of the air dispersion analysis were used in conjunction with diesel particulate matter emission rates to calculate maximum diesel particulate matter concentrations to which receptors could be exposed. The AERMOD version of EPA’s general dispersion model was used to calculate DPM exposure. Freeway and train track line sources were represented by a long string of thin volume sources (a semi-uniform mixing zone created by turbulence from the moving source). Although the AERMOD is a more refined version of the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) family of models, the SCAQMD has not released meteorological data packages needed to run the model. Processed Ontario Airport weather data was purchased from a commercial supplier (Lakes Environmental Software). A nested grid of receptors with 25 meter by 25 meter spacing was supplemented with a regular spacing of receptors along the entire project perimeter. A total of 455 individual line sources and 430 receptor points were incorporated into the model set-up. P a g e |4 EXPOSURE AND TOXICITY ASSESSMENT For this HRA, the exposure assumptions dictated by OEHHA guidelines were used to assess potential human health risks. In order to determine the total dose to the receptor, the applicable pathways of exposure need to be identified. As stated in the guidelines, the inhalation pathway must be evaluated from all TAC’s. Because this risk assessment focuses solely on diesel particulate risks, multi-pathway exposures (i.e., exposure through soil dermal exposure, ingestion of plants, etc.) were not considered in this risk assessment. Methods used in this HRA are conservative in that they are more likely to overestimate than underestimate the potential human health risks. For example, risks and hazards are calculated for individuals at locations where ground-level concentrations of TACs are predicted by the air dispersion modeling to be the highest. No improvement in train engine DPM emissions was assumed for the next 70 years. Further, individuals are assumed to be exposed in residential exposure scenarios for unrealistically long durations. Furthermore, the toxicity values (i.e., the values for each chemical at which an adverse health risk is predicted) are designed to be health- protective and are therefore also conservative. Thus the risks calculated for the project are anticipated to represent upper-bound risks rather than actual values for any individual. To estimate potential incremental cancer risks and the potential for adverse chronic non-cancer health hazards to exposures, the inhalation dose of TAC’s were calculated. The equation for dose through inhalation (Dose-inh) is as follows: Dose-inh = (C x DBR x A x EF x ED)/(AT) Where: Dose-inh = Chronic daily intake, mg/kg body weight per day C = Ground-level concentration of TAC to which the receptor is exposed, micrograms/cubic meter DBR = Daily breathing rate, liters per kilogram body weight per day A = Inhalation absorption factor (assumed to be 1) EF = Exposure frequency, days/year ED = Exposure duration, years AT = Averaging time, days (assumed to be 25,550 days for a 70-year cancer risk) P a g e |5 DOSE RESPONSE ASSESSMENT Dose-response assessment describes the quantitative relationship between the amount of exposure to a substance (the dose) and the incidence of occurrence of injury (the response). The process often involves establishing a toxicity value or criterion to use in assessing potential health risk. The toxicity criterion, or health guidance value, for carcinogens is the cancer potency slope (potency factor), which describes the potential risk of developing cancer per unit of average daily dose over a 70-year lifetime. Cancer potency factors are typically expressed as an upper bound probability developing cancer assuming continuous lifetime exposure to a substance at a dose of one milligram per kilogram of body weight, and are expressed in units of inverse dose as a potency slope (i.e., (mg/kg/day)-1). For air toxics risk assessments, cancer inhalation and oral potency factors have been recommended by OEHHA. Non-cancer health risks (chronic and acute) are characterized by comparing the exposure to a concentration or dose at or below which adverse effects are not likely to occur following specified exposure conditions. These concentrations or doses are called Reference Exposure Levels (RELs). As stated in the OEHHA guidance, it should be emphasized that exceeding the REL does not necessarily indicate that an adverse health effect will occur. Levels of exposure above the REL have a chronic increasing but undefined probability of resulting in an adverse health impact. RELs are designed to take into account exposure of sensitive populations (e.g., the very young, the elderly, those with chronic respiratory disease) and are thus intended to be health protective. Chronic RELs are levels above which prolonged exposure may have an adverse health effects, and acute RELs are levels above which short-term exposure (generally one-hour, but for some substances longer averaging times are used) may have an adverse health effect. To assess whether exposure to a substance has the potential for an adverse health effect the exposure concentration is divided by the REL to calculate a Hazard Index (HI) for that substance. OEHHA has developed a table of health data for toxic air contaminants that must be used to estimate risk for HRAs conducted in accordance with the OEHHA guidance. The most recent health data for diesel particulate matter were obtained from OEHHA and are incorporated in the analysis. DPM is assumed to have a carcinogenic inhalation unit risk factor of 3.0 x 10-4 (ug/m3)-1 and a chronic REL of 5.0 ug/m3. A lifetime exposure of 1 ug/m3 of DPM is thus presumed to create an individual excess cancer probability of 300 in a million. By way of reference, smoking creates a 5,000 in a million probability, and the lifetime risk from all cancer is close to 300,000 in a million. The SCAQMD in its CEQA Guidelines (1993) has adopted a significance threshold of a 10 in a million risk excess cancer risk as potentially significant. A risk of less than 1 in a million is considered less-than-significant. Intermediate risks should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and minimized where feasible. P a g e |6 RISK CHARACTERIZATION Risk characterization integrates the results of the identification of chemicals of potential concern, exposure assessment, and toxicity assessment to describe the risks to individuals and populations in terms of extent and severity of probable adverse health risks. In this HRA, the health risk characterization process involves integrating the exposure intakes and the toxicity values to estimate two types of potential health effects: carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic. Carcinogenic Risk Characterization Methodology Carcinogenic risk characterization methodology stems from the current regulatory assumption that chemicals causing cancer may not have a threshold of safety (i.e., a carcinogen produces a risk of causing cancer at any level of exposure). EPA scientists emphasize that background levels of exposure to cancer-causing agents are already initiating the carcinogenic process. This HRA focuses on the incremental potential cancer risk associated with exposure to truck and train DPM emissions and, therefore, does not account for natural background or individual habits/occupations. In assessing the carcinogenic effects resulting from exposures to environmental contaminants, the lifetime excess cancer risk, which is considered to be the risk of developing cancer above the background risk level, is calculated using the following equation: Inhalation Dose (mg/kg-day) x Cancer Potency (mg/kg-day)-1 = Cancer Risk In accordance with OEHHA guidance, a 70-year inhalation cancer risk evaluation is required for all carcinogenic risk assessments. Cancer risk is calculated by multiplying the inhalation dose by the inhalation cancer potency factor to yield the potential inhalation excess cancer risk. The cancer risk is expressed as increased change during a 70-year exposure period of cancer. Noncarcinogenic Risk Characterization Methodology Noncarcinogenic impacts are determined for acute (inhalation exposure) and for both inhalation and oral chronic exposure. Estimates of health impacts for noncancer endpoints are expressed as a hazard index (HI). An HI of one or less indicates that adverse health effects are not expected to result from exposure to emissions of that substance. HIs are calculated by dividing the exposure concentration by a reference exposure level (REL). Reference exposure levels are defined as the concentration to which a receptor could be exposed below which no adverse health effects are anticipated. DPM has RELs only for chronic exposure. The following subsections discuss the risks predicted at the point of maximum impact (PMI). Because of train track proximity, the PMI occurs along the southern project boundary. The AERMOD model input/output is provided in a separate CD. P a g e |7 Point of Maximum Impact and Cancer Burden The highest individual excess cancer risk for the PMI, calculated on the basis of residential risk is 265 in a million. This point is located directly along the southern project boundary. Risk levels drop off rapidly with distance, but still remain far in excess of the 10 in a million threshold of significance. At a point mid-way between the southern and northern site boundary, risk levels are at 100 in a million. Farther north, the increased set-back from the train tracks is off-set to closer proximity to I-10 such that the risk level is around 90 in a million for most of the northern one-half of Guasti Plaza. At the closest point of probable residential occupancy, the calculated risk value is 200 in a million. The risk map for Guasti Plaza is shown in Figure 1. Risk levels that are 20 times higher than the adopted significance threshold are obviously a serious concern. However, the artificially conservative input assumptions mask the true health risk of living near a set of train tracks. By way of perspective, the health risk assessment for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach found that the 200 in a million risk contour extends perhaps 10 miles from the ports. The ports HRA concluded as follows: Risk Acres Population > 500 x 10-6 2,500 53,000 200-500 X 10-6 26,500 360,000 100-200 X 10-6 64,500 724,000 10-100 X 10-6 70,000 843,200 Two million people experience a theoretical excess cancer risk in excess of the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in a million due to port activities. It provides some perspective on the project site DPM exposure which demonstrates a level of concern, but also shows that such levels are by no means at all unusual. Chronic Health Index The chronic health index (HI) is related to health effects such as recurrent asthma. An index of 1.0 is considered significant. The maximum calculated annual DPM exposure is 0.88 ug/m3. With a REL of 5.0 ug/m3 for DPM, this translates into a chronic HI of 0.18 for PMI. Chromic health effects from track proximity are less-than significant. Figure 1 Guasti Plaza Risk Map Project Air Purification Recommendations Adverse air quality effects of freeway proximity are proposed to be off-set by a highly upgraded ventilation and air purification system. By creating an indoor air quality (IAQ) environment that goes far beyond normal residential standards, the accumulated dose of air pollution to all residents will be lower than for residents living thousands of feet away. Air filtration is expressed in terms of a “minimum efficiency reporting value”, or MERV. The application guidelines for MERV ratings are as follows: MERV Typical Efficiency Particle Size Cut-Off Typical Application Filter Type 1-4 70%10 Minimum Residential Disposable Synthetic 5-8 90%3-10 Better Residential Pleated & Treated 9-12 96%1-3 Superior Residential Bag or Cartridge 13-16 98%0.3-1 Hospital & Healthcare Rigid Cell or Cartridge Source: National Air Filtration Assoc. User’s Guide for ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2 (www.nafa.org) The residential mechanical ventilation systems are proposed to be equipped with air purification systems that are rated with a MERV of 13 consistent with American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2. MERV 13 systems remove a minimum of 95 percent of DPM, usually higher. MERV 13 systems are routinely used in hospitals and elementary schools to protect particularly sensitive receptor populations. The average California resident spends 30 minutes per day outside their home and 15.5 hours inside (8 hours away from home). By providing enhanced filtration that cleans ambient air, the DPM exposure dose for project residents can be maintained at substantially less than for other areas of Ontario seen as follows (excess cancer risk per million): Guasti Plaza Other Areas Background Risk Local Risk 1,250 +200 1,250 0 Outdoor Total 1,450 1,250 Normal Indoor (75% red.)362 312 Enhanced Indoor (95% red.)72 n/a Ave. Exposure *115 341 *(0.5 hours outdoors + 15.5 hours indoors)/16 P a g e |10 MITIGATION The following measures are required to reduce railroad proximity health effects to less-than- significant: All residential living areas shall be equipped with air filtration systems operating under positive pressure rated at MERV 13 or higher. Replacement filters shall be made available through apartment management (or HOA for condos). Outdoor recreation areas shall be encouraged along the northern portion of the residential areas with the greatest distance setback from the railroad tracks. The dense tree canopy shall be established along the southern site boundary to act as a living bio-filter for particulate air pollution. Project File No. 130000091 GPA, ZC, TTM No. 72407, CUP, Site Plan Review and Development Agreement INITIAL STUDY TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES APPENDIX 7 CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091: GPA, ZC, TTM #72407, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MMRP Table, Page 1 Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Air Quality III-1 Fugitive Dust Construction activities are not anticipated to cause dust emissions to exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. Nevertheless, mitigation through enhanced dust control measures is recommended for use because of the non-attainment status of the air basin.  Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive disturbed areas.  Prepare and implement a high wind dust control plan.  Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed.  Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas.  Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed.  Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials.  Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone.  Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.  Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. This measure shall be included in the construction contract as a contract specifi- cation and implemented by the contractor during construction. A copy of the construction contract including this air mitigation measures shall be retained in the project file. Verification of implementa - tion shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the air quality measures have been implemented as required in these measures. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Air Quality III-2 Exhaust Emission Controls Similarly, ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) are calculated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. However, because of the regional non-attainment for photochemical smog, the use of reasonably available control measures for diesel exhaust is recommended.  Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.  Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or cleaner heavy equipment.  Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment. This measure shall be included in the construction contract as a contract specifi- cation and implemented by the contractor during construction. A copy of the construction contract including this air mitigation measures shall be retained in the project file. Verification of implementa- tion shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the air quality measures have been implemented as required in these measures. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091: GPA, ZC, TTM #72407, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MMRP Table, Page 2 Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Air Quality III-3 Occupancy Emissions Operational emissions are not anticipated to exceed their respective SCAQMD significance thresholds with application of the following measure:  Utilize SCAQMD approved Rule 445 devices rather than wood burning fireplaces for any residential use.  All residential living areas shall be equipped with air filt ration systems operating under positive pressure rated at MERV 13 or higher.  Replacement filters shall be made available through the HOA for the project.  The substantial tree canopy shall be established along the southern site boundary to act as a living bio-filter for particulate pollution. This measure shall be included in the construction contract as a contract specifi- cation and implemented by the contractor during construction. A copy of the construction contract including this air mitigation measures shall be retained in the project file. Verification of implementa - tion shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the air quality measures have been implemented as required in these measures. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Cultural Resources V-1 Should any cultural resources be e ncountered during construction of these facilities, earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection shall be performed immediately by a qualified archaeologist. This professional shall assess the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. This measure shall be implemented during construction activities. If subsurface cultural resources are accident- ally exposed during construction, the event shall be documented as required in this measure and the documentation retained in the project file. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091: GPA, ZC, TTM #72407, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MMRP Table, Page 3 Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Cultural Resources V-2 Prior to any demolition, or disturbances on the proposed Project site, a field inspection of the Project area, including all existing buildings and other built-environment features within the proposed Project boundaries. Since the Project area is fully developed and virtually all open space is covered with pavement, gravel or structures, with no undisturbed ground surface visible, field procedures shall be focused primarily on buildings, structures, objects, This measure shall be implemented prior to initiating demolition of any facilities on the project site. The field inspection shall be documented with a report of findings. A copy of documentation shall be retained in the project site. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Cultural Resources V-3 Any cultural resources within, or adjacent to, the proposed Project site shall be analyzed to determine whether such resources meet the official definition of "historical resources," as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in particular CEQA. Based on this analysis, a detailed mitigation plan, if necessary, shall be developed and implemented. This measure shall be implemented prior to initiating demolition of any facilities on the project site. Any measures required to document struc- tures to be demolished shall be completed in accordance with recommendations. Structure documentation shall be retained in the project file and made available to the City Library. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Cultural Resources V-4 Should any paleontologic resources be encountered during construc tion of these facilities, earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection should be performed immediately by a qualified paleontologist. This professional shall assess the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. This measure shall be implemented during construction activities. If subsurface paleontologic resources are accidentally exposed during construction, the event shall be documented as required in this measure and the documentation retained in the project file. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091: GPA, ZC, TTM #72407, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MMRP Table, Page 4 Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Geology and Soils VI-1 All inhabited structures shall be designed to do the following: a. Resist minor earthquakes without damage; b. Resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some nonstructural damage; and c. Resist major earthquakes, of the intensity or severity of the strongest forecast to occur within the City of Temple City, without collapse, but with some structural, as well as nonstructural damage. Habitable structure designs shall be completed prior to initiating construction and implemented during construction. A copy of the seismic structural design requirements shall be retained in the project file. Verification of implementation shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the seismic design measures have been implemented as required in this measure. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Geology and Soils VI-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, additional analysis shall be performed to determine the depth of groundwater levels. If said levels are not likely to rise above a depth of 50 feet, then no special mitigation is required. If the groundwater level exceeds this threshold, then hazards from liquefaction shall be mitigate d to “acceptable levels” in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 3721(a). Methods to reduce liquefaction hazards may include, but not be limited to: a. Well-reinforced foundations; b. Post-tensioned slabs; c. Grade beams with structural slabs; or d. Mat foundations. The determination of ground water depth shall be completed prior to initiating construction. If liquefaction hazards are identified, the specific design measures that will be implemented on the site to protect structures shall be identified and then implemented during construction. A copy of the data documenting ground water depth shall be retained in the project file. Verification of implementation shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the liquefaction design measures have been implemented as required in this measure. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091: GPA, ZC, TTM #72407, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MMRP Table, Page 5 Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities will be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regula - tions regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant released. The contaminated waste will be collected and disposed of at an appro- priately licensed disposal or treatment facility. This measure will be incorporated into the SWPPP prepared for the Project developme nt. These measures shall be identified in the project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implemented during construc- tion. A copy of the SWPPP shall be retained in the project file. Verification of implementation shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the SWPPP BMPs have been implemented as required in this measure. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII-2 The developer shall notify the selected construction contractor that the structures may contain asbestos or l ead paint and testing shall be completed prior to demolition. If asbestos or lead paint is encountered, the construction contractor shall remove these materials to accepted background concentrations from all locations where such materials are encountered, and the material shall be handled in accordance with existing laws and regulations in place at the time of implementation. All contaminated material shall be disposed of at an appropriately licensed facility (such as a landfill authorized to handle the contaminated waste) and transported in accordance with regula tions in place at the time of removal. The notification shall occur prior to initiating demolition. During demolition any contami- nated materials shall be removed to a properly licensed facility and documentation of proper disposal shall be provided to the City. A copy of the developer notification shall be provided to the City and retained in the project file. Documentation of any contaminated material disposed of shall be retained in the project file. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091: GPA, ZC, TTM #72407, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MMRP Table, Page 6 Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII-3 Vapor mitigation, in the form of vapor barriers, is recomm ended below four of the proposed units planned for the eastern portion of the Site. If changes are made to the proposed layout of the Site that alters the density of proposed structures in this area, it is recommended that further evaluation for vapor mitigation would be necessary for any additional structures. Vapor mitigation shall be installed during construction and any additional vapor mitiga- tion shall be documented and implemented during construction. Verification of implementation shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the vapor mitigation measure(s) have been implemented as required in this measure. Field notes docu- menting verification shall be retained in the project file. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII-4 The developer shall notify the selected construction contractor that a potential exists to encounter arsenic and lead impacted soils at the site. The contractor shall be prepared to detect, excavate, document and dispose of contaminated materials in compliance with applicable laws and regulations at the time of construction if contaminated soils are encountered. The arsenic and lead impacted soils from Areas 1 through 4 be excavated and disposed of at an offsite facility under oversight from the SMU in order to receive regulatory closure of this issue. Notification shall be provided to the contractor prior to initiating ground disturbance. Detec- tion of any additional contamination shall be completed during site preparation. Soil to be excavated shall be excavated prior to initiating ground disturbance. A copy of the notification shall be retained in the project file. Documentation that soil to be excavated has been completed prior to initiating ground disturbance shall be retained in the project file. If additional contamination is encountered during construction, the City shall be notified and documentation of management of the contaminated material through ultimate disposal shall be retained by the City in the project file. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Hydrology and Water Quality IX-1 Prior to the approval of the grading permit, the City shall review and approve the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan as required by the program requirements in effe ct at the time grading is proposed. The SWPPP shall be completed prior to initiating construction and implemented during construction. A copy of the SWPPP shall be retained in the project file. Verification of implementation shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the SWPPP BMPs have been implemented as required in this measure. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091: GPA, ZC, TTM #72407, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MMRP Table, Page 7 Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Noise XII-1 Sound Wall (16-foot) No additional mitigation necessary except the ability to close dual paned windows and the provision of supplemental ventilation Sound Wall (12-foot) First Story: no mitigation required Second Story: 30 dB mitigation package (provided in Table XII -5) Provision of supplemental ventilation No Wall First and Second Story: 30 dB mitigation package (provided in Table XII-5) Provision of supplemental ventilation The developer shall select and the City shall approve the final noise attenuation design prior to initiating construction and installed prior to site occupancy. A copy of the design plans for the sound attenuation measures shall be retained in the project file. Verification of implementation shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the sound attenuation measures have been implemented as required in this measure. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Transportation / Traffic XVI-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a limited use area should be established and maintained to provide a clear line of sight for vehicles negotiating the proposed Project entry intersection with Lower Azusa Road. Trees, bushes, and architectural décor shall not block the line of sight requirements at the proposed Project intersection with Lower Azusa Road and shall allow for sufficient sight distance for a vehicle to turn left and right out of the proposed Project access point. This measure shall be implemented prior to issuance of building permits. The limited use area shall be defined and implemented during construction. A copy of site drawings showing the limited use area shall be retained in the project file. Verification of implementation shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the limited use area is maintained as required in this measure. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Transportation / Traffic XVI-2 Temple City shall periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the site once the project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory. This measure shall be implemented after the project is fully developed. A copy of the field review of traffic operations shall be retained in the project file. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091: GPA, ZC, TTM #72407, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MMRP Table, Page 8 Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Transportation / Traffic XVI-3 At all times during construction of the site improvements, the site developer shall ensure that emergency fi re or medical vehicles are able to access all areas along the Project alignment during construction. The Developer shall submit an acceptable temporary traffic routing plan to ensure that adequate circulation capacity is being maintained to serve emergency functions (including emergency response and emergency evacuation plans) along adjacent Project roadways. The traffic management plan shall be completed prior to initiating construction and implemented during construction. A copy of the traffic management plan shall be retained in the project file. Verification of implementation shall be based on field inspec- tions by City inspection personnel that verify the traffic management measures are been implemented as required in this measure. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file. Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials Initial Study City of Temple City December 10, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report-Item No. 7C File No.: 130000091 BACKGROUND: Olson Land Opportunities, LLC (applicant) is proposing a 74-unit single-family attached and detached residential project, named Azusa Walk, with on-site recreational amenities. The project is located at the southern most portion of the City on Lower Azusa Road between the Eaton Wash and the Union Pacific Railroad (For location, see Attachment 3). The site is zoned M-2 and is located in a mixed manufacturing and single-family residential area. Manufacturing uses and warehouses are located across the Eaton Wash, east of the project site. West of the Union Pacific Railroad are single family residential homes off Pitkin Street in the City of Rosemead. Directly across the street is a multi-tenant manufacturing center comprised of mostly auto related uses. The project site has remained vacant since the lumber yard shut down in December 2009. The project site has a total size of 10.8 acres. However, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District has a recorded easement on the property of 4.63 acres, which is known as the Eaton Wash. Therefore, the net developable area, unencumbered by the easement, is 6.22 acres, with a width of 130 feet and a depth of 2,570 feet. The project requires the approval of five different planning applications: Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change. The project is a subdivision which creates 74 single-family lots with common ownership of streets and recreational areas. The subdivision is proposed at an R-2 density (12 dwelling units/acre) of the net developable lot size, but because of its unique size and shape, it cannot comply with R-2 standards of development. In order to address development on this unique property, a new overlay zoning district is proposed to address development on unique properties. A development agreement has also been proposed between the applicant and the City for the project. ANALYSIS: 1. General Plan Amendment: The proposed project requests a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from industrial to medium residential and to change the zoning of the project site from M-2 to R-2. The project proposes 74 units, a density which complies with the maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre of the R-2 zoning district. 2. lnfill Community {!C) Overlay Zoning District: The project is contingent on the adoption of Ordinance No. 13-981 (Attachment 2) to create an Infill Community (!C) Overlay Zoning District to make the 74-unit development possible on the site which is limited by physical constraints and impediments that restrict access, public services, and utility services. The IC is specially designed for sites that have similar development constraints to this project and is intended for sites that are limited by physical constraints and not less than 5 acres. The zoning district establishes standards of development designed to permit high density development but allow some flexibility to design guidelines and development standards including floor area ratio, height limits, open space, or Page 2 December 10, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report-Item No. 7C File No.: 130000091 parking, etc. per project basis. Except as provided by the development standards of the IC Overlay District, projects must comply with standards of the underlying zoning district. The IC Overlay District permits the creation of 74 individual lots at a minimum of 1,400 square feet, and built to a floor area ratio of 1.35 and maximum lot coverage of 70%. The total project is built at a floor area ratio of 0.60 of the net developable land area. The IC Overlay District essentially allows the project to be feasible at the proposed density. 3. Site Design/Building Layout The project is designed to fit 74 units on a long and narrow lot fronting the south side of Lower Azusa Road. It is a gated community, with CMU and wrought iron fence on the north side alongside the Eaton Wash, and 14-foot high CMU block wall on the south side alongside the railroad tracks to mitigate noise from the railroad. The project is divided into 15 blocks in three different block arrangements. Each block is between 1,000 square feet and 1,170 square feet; and either has 5 units, 6 units, or 5 units with an outdoor recreational pocket park. Buildings cover approximately 1.95 acres, or 31.35% of the project site. Hardscape, pavement, or parking covers approximately 2.43 acres or 39.07% of the project site. Landscape and open space covers the remaining 1.84 acres of the site, or 29.58% of the project site. 4. Site Access/Circulation: The project fronts the south side of Lower Azusa Road. The entrance at Lower Azusa Road is the main and only entrance. The entrance node is paved with stone pavers and a decorative blue tile fountain wall. The proposed project is gated with a 6-foot high electronically operated entrance gate. A 22-foot fire lane is planned at the southern portion of the site and extends the length of the site. 14 access driveways are connected off the main fire lane. Each access driveway is 24 feet wide. The driveways and fire lane provide vehicular access to each private parking garage and parallel guest parking; and shall be kept clear of obstructions at all time. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) (Appendix 5 of Attachment 3) was prepared by the applicant's consultant, analyzing the projected traffic impact of the project. The TIS assessed the projected level of service at two intersections on Lower Azusa Road, at Encinita Avenue and at Temple City Boulevard. Traffic projections were found to be at acceptable levels. Congestion due to traffic queuing to turn into the project is projected to be "less than significant" with mitigation measures implemented. The mitigation measures can be found in the MND (Attachment 3). Per the requirements of the Public Works Division, public improvements are required to widen the south side of Lower Azusa Road to 32 feet from centerline to curb; and construct curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the project frontage. Moreover, prior to the issuance of a building permit, additional measures will be taken to secure a clear line of sight for vehicles at the entrance to the project and Lower Azusa Road. Temple City shall also periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the site once the project is constructed to assure that traffic operations are satisfactory. 5. Open Space: Three pocket parks are provided throughout the project site; and one open space is provided at the entrance. The parks and open space are designed with thematic intentions. The open space at the entrance is grassy and a little hilly, with a square walkway, symbolizing "earth". The first pocket park has a triangular walkway with a focal point at a red Kaffirboom Coral Tree, Page 3 December 10, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report-Item No. 7C File No.: 130000091 symbolizing "fire"; the second pocket park has a rectangular walkway around a playground, symbolizing wood; the third pocket park has a round walkway around a metal gazebo, symbolizing "metal". The pocket parks are approximately 0.139 acres. The totality of open space and landscape areas cover 1.84 acres, or 29.58% of the project site. 6. Parking: Parking provided in the project complies with the parking standards of the IC Overlay District. The IC Overlay District requires 2 private garage spaces per unit and 3 guest spaces per 4 units; for this project there will be 70 guest parking spaces. The project provides 2 garages spaces per unit that are individually accessible through a double door, a total of 148 private spaces; and 70 total guest parking spaces that are parallel alongside the 22-foot wide fire lane. 7. Unit Design: The 74 units are single-family homes and are proposed on 74 R-2 lots. Each unit is individually accessed through a main entrance; garages are also individually accessed through driveways. There are 5 unit floor plans used throughout the site and small variations in floor plan design. The chart below lists the general information per unit plan. ·. :. ·.· >( > ·····••• •. · .Livillg4rea . · · ····-• ·-···. < •· .·: ,. ·. . I .. ·:· lst iloor ·. ·' · 2nd Flo~.r . Tq~al Area ·· Lot .. 1 >L!>tsize I· . :' .. , ..• I . OnitPian .. Bedrooms Are<~ (S.F.) Area (S.F.) . · .. (s.F:) · · Dimensions·. : (S.F.) .· ... ·· .. Plan 1 (Duplex) 3 507 903 1,410 56' X 25' 1,400 Plan 2X (Duplex) 3 611 948 1,559 56' X 29'-2 11 1,634 Plan 2A 3 611 948 1,559 56' X 33' 1,848 Plan 28 3 611 948 1,559 56' X 33' 1,848 Plan 2C 3 611 1,023 1,634 56' X 33' 1,848 Plan 38 4 654 1,059 1,713 60' X 32'-2" 2,365 Plan 4A 4 1,054 1,109 2,163 55' X 43' 2,365 Plan 48 4 1,054 1,109 2,163 55' X 43' 2,365 Plan 4C 4 1,054 1,114 2,168 55' X 43' 2,365 8. Architecture: All units will be of wood frame construction and are designed to resemble a "California Spanish" style of architecture. The structure will be two-stories at maximum height of 28 feet, with single story elements along the street, adding interest and articulation to the street scene, and providing a pedestrian scale to the development. The units will use 8 color schemes of matching earth tones. Both light concrete S-tile and flat tile roofing made to look like slate are used to provide visual interest. The following materials are used: A. 16/20 sand finish stucco B. Sand finish stucco trim C. Shaped foam corbels D. Sand finish stucco recess E. Coach light Page 4 December 10, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report-Item No. 7C File No.: 130000091 F. House number G. Decorative composite shutter H. Metal roll-up garage door 9. Noise: Due to the projects proximity to the Union Pacific Railroad, a Noise Impact Analysis (NIA) was prepared by the applicant's consultants. In the NIA, a detailed background and analysis of noise, ambient noise, and vibration exposure was provided. The main concern was the noise produced from the adjacent railroad. In the MND, three different mitigation options were provided based on the height of the block wall adjacent to the railroad. The applicant is proposing to construct a 14-foot high wall, which would require 30dB mitigation package installed on the second story walls. The recommended building requirements for a minimum noise level reduction (NLR) of 30dB are specified in Table XII-5 of the MND, and will mitigate the noise to a level of "less than sign'1ficant". 10. Drainage/Stormwater Runoff: The project will comply with the approved drainage concept/hydrology study/Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), and meet all requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The existing site topography slopes in the southeasterly direction towards the existing railroad easement/tracks with approximately 19 feet of elevation change. The project utilizes a stormwater drainage system which discharges into the Eaton Wash through 7 catch basins with filtration systems located throughout the private street. All drainage into the Eaton Wash is subject to Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and Army Corps of Engineers approval and permits. 11. Development Agreement A Development Agreement (Attachment 5) has been drafted as a contract between the applicant and the City to specify the standards and conditions that will govern development of the property. The Agreement benefits both the City and applicant in that it protects the project's entitlement and applicant investment and also includes conditions required City. The Agreement includes development impact fees (Exhibit "D" of Attachment 5) imposed by the City including an affordable housing fee of $157,000; a park fee of $168,000; and a sewer reconstruction fee of $74,000. The Agreement also clarifies terms of entitlement and contract termination and extension, which sets the targeted date of Final Tract Map recordation at 30 months following the effective date. Wh'lie the Development Agreement will be reviewed and approved by the City Council, it is attached for your information. CONCLUSION: Staff feels that the proposed development would be beneficial for the City and is a reasonable use for the property given its unique situation of being narrow and deep, and located between the Eaton Wash and the Union Pacific Railroad. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached draft resolution (Attachment 1), recommending that the City Council approve the project's applications, and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Page 5 December 10, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report-Item No. 7C File No.: 130000091 REQUIRED FINDINGS: The findings required in Section 9203 of the Temple City Municipal Code for a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map are contained in the attached resolution (Attachment 1). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Per the California Environmental Quality Act, the City conducted an Initial Study that notified the public 30 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting that the intended to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed development. Staff has determined that this project has "less than significant" environmental impacts with mitigation measures incorporated and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project per California Environmental Quality Act Section 21064.5 and 15070. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval are contained in the attached resolution (Attachment 1). ATTACHMENTS: 1: Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-2392PC 2: Draft Ordinance No. 13-981 3: Notice of Intent, Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 4: Tentative Tract Map 72407, and associated plans 5: Development Agreement Page 6 . ·.· ... ,< CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091: GPA, ZC, TTM #72407, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Miti9ationMeasure < ~::_ .. ·•··.· . · > lmpJel'llenlauon Sche'(lule ·. ·•· .. ··•· . .. ····. ' > Verificittliu:\ ........ ·. . _::__ Air Quality 111-1 Fugitive Oust This measure shall be included in the A copy of the construction contract including Construction activities are not anticipated to cause dust emissions to construction contract as a contract specifi-this air mitigation measures shall be retained exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. Nevertheless, mitigation through cation and implemented by the contractor in the project file. Verification of implementa- enhanced dust control measures is recommended for use because of the during construction. tion shall be based on field inspections by City non-attainment status of the air basin. inspection personnel that verify the air quality measures have been implemented as required • Apply soli stabilizers or moisten inactive disturbed areas. in these measures. Field notes documenting • Prepare and implement a high wind dust control plan. verification shall be retained in the project file . • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. • Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas. • Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed . • Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. • Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone . • Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. ·.) ; /. ·Source . ·.·•·· I • Responsible Pany. · · Sfl!to!!lDate{lnifials Initial Study City of Temple City .. .··•. . ·· . ···••···. · i Nlltigatic)nl'/leasure · . ··.· . · • --.·•· · •· > _::_ ... lmplementati6n Schedule / · ·· ·· ·.... . Verification. > ____o ... ~ Air Quality 111-2 Exhaust Emission Controls This measure shall be included in the A copy of the construction contract including Similarly, ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) are calculated to be construction contract as a contract specifi-this air mitigation measures shall be retained .. ~ below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. However, because of the regional cation and implemented by the contractor in the project file. Verification of implementa-. , non-attainment for photochemical smog, the use of reasonably available during construction. lion shall be based on field mspectlons by C1ty • control measures for diesel exhaust is recommended. inspection personnel that verify the air quality • measures have been implemented as required .. j • Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment in these measures. Field notes documenting • Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or cleaner heavy verification shall be retained in the project file . ~ equipment. • Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road ~ equipment 1 · .•. ·. ·.··. ·•··· Source. •:·· . · •. • .· I • Respon~ible R<!r!Y _ __; StatuslOate.IJiilti"!hi ~ Initial Study City ofT emple City r (._ MMRP Table, Page 1 I ·. ... .. • ••• CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091: GPA, ZC, TTM #72407, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measure· .• . ·· · · · .· ...... ··. . Implementation ~chedule •• I -'-· > Verification . Air Quality 111-3 Occugancy Emissions This measure shall be included in the A copy of the construction contract including Operational emissions are not anticipated to exceed their respective construction contract as a contract specifi-this air mitigation measures shall be retained SCAQMD significance thresholds with application of the following cation and implemented by the contractor in the project file. Verification of implementa- measure: during construction. lion shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the air quality • Utilize SCAQMD approved Rule 445 devices rather than wood measures have been implemented as required burning fireplaces for any residential use. in these measures. Field notes documenting 0 All residential living areas shall be equipped with air filtration systems verification shall be retained in the project file. operating under positive pressure rated at MERV 13 or higher. • Replacement filters shall be made available through the HOA for the project 0 The substantial tree canopy shall be established along the southern site boundary to act as a living bio-filter for particulate pollution. Source .• . . Responsible Party Status /Date /Initials Initial Study City ofT emple City · .. · .·. · ... ·· .· .. . ·. Mitigation Measure ·. · .. ·• · . • . ·• ·· ( · ... ·•· •. , ·.· •. . . Implementation Schedule ... . .·· .. Verification .·· Cultural Resources V-1 Should any cultural resources be encountered during construction of This measure shall be implemented during If subsurface cultural resources are accident- these facilities, earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area of construction activities. ally exposed during construction, the event the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection shall be performed shall be documented as required in this immediately by a qualified archaeologist This professional shall assess measure and the documentation retained in the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for the project file. appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act . Source .·. Respom;ible Party Status I Date /Initials Initial Study City ofT emple City ·--·-- MMRP Table, Page 2 . . . ·. ·. CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091: GPA, ZC, TTM #72407, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM · • Mitigation Measure . · .. ··. . . . Implementation· Schedule . . Verification .··•. . . Cultural Resources V-2 Prior to any demolition, or disturbances on the proposed Project site, a This measure shall be implemented prior to The field inspection shall be documented with field inspection of the Project area, including all existing buildings and initiating demolition of any facilities on the a report of findings. A copy of documentation other built-environment features within the proposed Project boundaries. project site. shall be retained in the project site. Since the Project area is fully developed and virtually all open space is covered with pavement, gravel or structures, with no undisturbed ground surface visible, field procedures shall be focused primarily on buildings, structures, objects, Source .· .... Responsible Party .·· status t Date /Initials Initial Study City of Temple City . .. · Mitigation Measure , · . . lmplementatiori'Schedule . ··· Verification · .... - Cultural Resources V-3 Any cultural resources within, or adjacent to, the proposed Project site This measure shall be implemented prior to Any measures required to document struc- shall be analyzed to determine whether such resources meet the official initiating demolition of any facilities on the lures to be demolished shall be completed in definition of "historical resources," as provided in the California Public project site. accordance with recommendations. Structure Resources Code, in particular CEQA. Based on this analysis, a detailed documentation shall be retained in the project mitigation plan, if necessary, shall be developed and implemented. file and made available to the City Library. .... Source: I · .... Responsible Party ··. . · Shitl1s/ Date !Initials Initial Study City of Temple City . · .. . . .. · ·. : .· ' ·, • i Mitigation Measure ( ' ' ' .· . Implementation Schedule .· ,.. · Verification y ·, -'- Cultural Resources V-4 Should any paleontologic resources be encountered during construction This measure shall be implemented during If subsurface paleontologic resources are of these facilities, earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area construction activities. accidentally exposed during construction, the of the finds shall be halted and an on site inspection should be performed event shall be documented as required in this immediately by a qualified paleontologist. This professional shall assess measure and the documentation retained in the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for the project file. appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. Source · .. ·· ·,. .. Responsible Party · ..... Status/ oatellriitiafs Initial Study City of Temple City MMRP Table, Page 3 · .. . CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091: GPA, ZC, TTM #72407, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM . . . Mitigation Measure .. ·.·. Implementation Schedule' :___ __._ Verification . · --'-... Geology and Soils Vl-1 All inhabited structures shall be designed to do the following: Habitable structure designs shall be A copy of the seismic structural design completed prior to initiating construction and requirements shall be retained in the project a. Resist minor earthquakes without damage; implemented during construction. file. Verification of implementation shall be b. Resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with based on field inspections by City inspection some nonstructural damage; and personnel that verify the seismic design c. Resist major earthquakes, of the intensity or severity of the strongest measures have been implemented as required forecast to occur within the City of Temple City, without collapse, but in this measure. Field notes documenting with some structural, as well as nonstructural damage. verification shall be retained in the project file. ·• Source ·.· Responsible Party ·• . · . Status I Date /Initials Initial Study City of Temple City I· .· .... •• . Mitigation Measure . , •· •·•••••·· ·· • •·· .. ; •. • -- ... · Implementation Schedule • ·. .··. •· .· .. ··. · • • .. Verification Geology and Soils Vl-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, additional analysis shall be The determination of ground water depth shall A copy of the data documenting ground water performed to determine the depth of groundwater levels. If said levels are be completed prior to initiating construction. If depth shall be retained in the project file. not likely to rise above a depth of 50 feet, then no special mitigation is liquefaction hazards are identified, the specific Verification of implementation shall be based required. If the groundwater level exceeds this threshold, then hazards design measures that will be implemented on on field inspections by City inspection from liquefaction shall be mitigated to "acceptable levels'' in accordance the site to protect structures shall be identified personnel that verify the liquefaction design with California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 3721 (a). Methods to and then implemented during construction. measures have been implemented as required reduce liquefaction hazards may include, but not be limited to: in this measure. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file. a. Well-reinforced foundations; b. Post-tensioned slabs; c. Grade beams with structural slabs; or d. Mat foundations. . ·. Source. ....~ Responsibhi Party_2_ . ·· Status I Date /Initials Initial Study City ofTemple City MMRP Table, Page 4 .· .. CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091: GPA, ZC, TTM #72407, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM _ • Mitigation Measure _·. . I . Implementation Schedule .----'-'-Verification ~·-· . ---- Hazards and Hazardous Materials Vlll-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities These measures shall be identified in the A copy of the SWPPP shall be retained in the will be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regula-project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan project file. Verification of implementation tions regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant released. The (SWPPP) and implemented during construe-shall be based on field inspections by City contaminated waste will be collected and disposed of at an appro-tion. inspection personnel that verify the SWPPP priately licensed disposal or treatment facility. This measure will be BMPs have been implemented as required in incorporated into the SWPPP prepared for the Project development. this measure. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file. .. ·. · •· Source -.-. Responsible Party. · Status 1 Date /lriitiats Initial Study City of Temple City - _.· __ . .· ....... .. _·. Mitigation-Measure .. . ·. . . _.· ·.·• _ -_-_ · -·_ .Implementation Sche_dule . verification -·-_ • ·- --·· Hazards and Hazardous Materials Vlll-2 The developer shall notify the selected construction contractor that the The notification shall occur prior to initiating A copy of the developer notification shall be structures may contain asbestos or lead paint and testing shall be demolition. During demolition any contami-provided to the City and retained in the project completed prior to demolition. If asbestos or lead paint is encountered, nated materials shall be removed to a properly file. Documentation of any contaminated the construction contractor shall remove these materials to accepted licensed facility and documentation of proper material disposed of shall be retained in the background concentrations from all locations where such materials are disposal shall be provided to the City. project file. encountered, and the material shall be handled in accordance with existing laws and regulations in place at the time of implementation. All contaminated material shall be disposed of at an appropriately licensed facility (such as a landfill authorized to handle the contaminated waste) and transported in accordance with regulations in place at the time of removal. . _Source -·· Responsible Party Status I Date IJnitials i Initial Study City of Temple City MMRP Table, Page 5 . CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091: GPA, ZC, TTM #72407, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measure . . · .. . . . I -. · · Implementation Scheduls .I ·-·._ . · • . Verification . ·. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Vlll-3 Vapor mitigation, in the form of vapor barriers, is recommended below Vapor mitigation shall be installed during Verification of implementation shall be based four of the proposed units planned for the eastern portion of the Site. If construction and any additional vapor mitiga-on field inspections by City inspection changes are made to the proposed layout of the Site that alters the lion shall be documented and implemented personnel that verify the vapor mitigation density of proposed structures in this area, it is recommended that during construction. measure(s) have been implemented as further evaluation for vapor mitigation would be necessary for any required in this measure. Field notes docu- additional structures. menting verification shall be retained in the project file. ·. ·. Source · .. ·. Responsible Party . . Status I Date /Initials Initial Study City ofTemple City ----- .-· ·.··. ·. . -. Mitigation Measure < . ·--·. .. Implementation S_chedule ·. ·.:: .-.--. Verification __;_ --'- Hazards and Hazardous Materials Vlll-4 The developer shall notify the selected construction contractor that a Notification shall be provided to the contractor A copy of the notification shall be retained in potential exists to encounter arsenic and lead impacted solls at the site. prior to initiating ground disturbance. Detec-the project file. Documentation that soil to be The contractor shall be prepared to detect, excavate, document and tion of any additional contamination shall be excavated has been completed prior to dispose of contaminated materials in compliance with applicable laws completed during site preparation. Soil to be initiating ground disturbance shall be retained and regulations at the time of construction if contaminated soils are excavated shall be excavated prior to initiating in the project file. If additional contamination encountered. The arsenic and lead impacted soils from Areas 1 ground disturbance. is encountered during construction, the City through 4 be excavated and disposed of at an offsite facility under shall be notified and documentation of oversight from the SMU in order to receive regulatory closure of this management of the contaminated material issue. through ultimate disposal shall be retained by the City in the project file. . . . Source ··_ . Respoitsit>le !"arty Status I Date /Initials Initial Study City ofTemple City : . Mitigation M<lasure _·-. . ·-· ··-• · ... --Implementation Schedule . . .. · . Verification Hydrology and Water Quality IX-1 Prior to the approval of the grading permit, the City shall review and The SWPPP shall be completed prior to A copy of the SWPPP shall be retained in the approve the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality initiating construction and implemented during project file. Verification of implementation Management Plan as required by the program requirements in effect at construction. shall be based on field inspections by City the time grading is proposed. inspection personnel that verify the SWPPP BMPs have been implemented as required in this measure. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file. I Source Respohsible !"arty . • • Status I Date t Initials Initial Study City of Temple City J MMRP Table, Page 6 Noise Xll-1 CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091: GPA, ZC, TTM #72407, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM . ··.· .. .· . · Mitigation Measure _:_ · .. · . ··· .. · .. · . Implementation Schedule .... ·.·Verification .· Sound Wall (16-foot) The developer shall select and the City shall A copy of the design plans for the sound No additional mitigation necessary except the ability to close dual paned approve the final noise attenuation design attenuation measures shall be retained in the windows and the provision of supplemental ventilation prior to initiating construction and installed project file. Verification of implementation prior to site occupancy. shall be based on field inspections by City Sound Wall (12-foot) inspection personnel that verify the sound First Story: no mitigation required attenuation measures have been implemented Second Story: 30 dB mitigation package (provided in Table Xll-5) as required in this measure. Field notes Provision of supplemental ventilation documenting verification shall be retained in No Wall the project file. First and Second Story: 30 dB mitigation package (provided in Table Xll-5) Provision of supplemental ventilation . · \ . . .. ·· s.ourc.e . ·. Responsible Party . . · Sta.tu~ (Date /. h]itials Initial Study City ofTemple City . · ..... · Mitigation Measure . . · ·.·.:. •• • · .• • < !m plem<mtatiC>n Schedule . . ·· Verification _ · ·.· .. Transportation I Traffic XVI-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a limited use area should be This measure shall be implemented prior to A copy of site drawings showing the limited established and maintained to provide a clear line of sight for vehicles issuance of building permits. The limited use use area shall be retained in the project file. negotiating the proposed Project entry intersection with Lower Azusa area shall be defined and implemented during Verification of implementation shall be based Road. Trees, bushes, and architectural decor shall not block the line of construction. on field inspections by City inspection sight requirements at the proposed Project intersection with Lower personnel that verify the limited use area is Azusa Road and shall allow for sufficient sight distance for a vehicle to maintained as required in this measure. Field turn left and right out of the proposed Project access point notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file . ··.. . ·.. Source . Responsible Party ·· • Status/ Date/ .Initials Initial Study City ofT emple City .· . · .. M_itigati(?n Mea-sute . .; ' . •· lmplemehtation .Schedule ·. ·.. ~ . .• . • verification ..:.__ - Transportation I Traffic XVI-2 Temple City shall periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of This measure shall be implemented after the A copy of the field review of traffic operations the site once the project is constructed to assure that the traffic project is fully developed. shall be retained in the project file. operations are satisfactory. ; ... .··· Source .• . Responsible Party .· . ·. _:_ _ status l Date /Initials Initial Study City o!Temple City MMRP Table, Page 7 . ·· .. ·. CITY OF TEMPLE CITY PROJECT FILE NO. 130000091: GPA, ZC, TTM #72407, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM . · Mitigation Measure ·. .. > . -.. implementation Schedule. · · · · .·• . Verification · . ... Transportation I Traffic XVI-3 At all times during construction of the site improvements, the site The traffic management plan shall be A copy of the traffic management plan shall be developer shall ensure that emergency fire or medical vehicles are able completed prior to initiating construction and retained in the project file. Verification of to access all areas along the Project alignment during construction. implemented during construction. implementation shall be based on field inspec- The Developer shall submit an acceptable temporary traffic routing plan tions by City inspection personnel that verify to ensure that adequate circulation capacity is being maintained to the traffic management measures are been serve emergency functions (including emergency response and implemented as required in this measure. emergency evacuation plans) along adjacent Project roadways. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file. ··. Source R.e!!ponsible Party Status I Date /Initials Initial Study City of Temple City MMR.P Table, Page 8