HomeMy Public PortalAbout10) 10A Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Temple City Terraces 5935 and 5953 Temple City BlvdCity Council
October 18, 2016
Page 2 of 6
3 . On March 19 , 2016 , in response to staff concerns and conclusions of the IS , the
appl icant submitted a rev ised project for consideration . The revised project proposed
that the construction be downsized from a five-story to a four-story building with the
commercial floor area reduced from 15 ,000 square feet to 7 ,250 square feet and the
number of condominium units reduced from 75 units to 61 units .
4 . On August 25 , 2016 , the City published the Notice of Intent to adopt the MND , and
made the IS and MND available for public review .
5. On September 1, 2016 , notice of the September 13 , 2016 , Planning Commission
meeting was published in the local newspaper and mailed to the property owners within
500 feet of the project site .
6 . On September 13 , 2016 , the Plann ing Commission held a public hear ing to cons ider
the project. After receiving the staff report and public comments , the Planning
Commission voted to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve
the project.
7 . On October 5, 2016 , notice of the City Council public hearing was published in the local
newspaper and mailed to the property owners within 500 feet of the project site .
ANALYSIS:
In 2002 , the City Council adopted the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) as a "critical
component of the downtown 's revitalization effort." The overall goal of the DSP is , in part ,
to "create a dynamic 'downtown ' commercial core " with a "balanced mixture of
commercial , administrative/professional and residential uses ." The DSP specifically
identifies this project site as a "unique opportunity for development , which will set the tone
of the Specific Plan vision ."
The proposed project is a mixed-use residential and commercial development that would
help fulfill the DSP's overall goal of a balanced mixture of uses for the downtown area .
The four-story building includes 61 residential condominium units and 7 ,250 square feet
of commercial space on the ground floor that would accommodate one to four commercial
tenants . The residential units include 22 one-bedroom units , 32 two-bedroom units , and
seven three-bedroom units . Onsite parking consists of 198 spaces , including 138 spaces
in a subterranean garage and 60 spaces at ground level. To fac ilitate alternative travel
modes , the project also includes 40 bicycle parking racks. The project is discussed in
greater detail in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment "C").
City Council
October 18 , 2016
Page 3 of 6
The DSP generally requ ires mixed-use proj ects to compl y w ith the R-3 zone development
sta nd ards i ncluding Fl oor Area Ra ti o and density. However, the DSP recognizes that the
R-3 sta ndards are intend ed for reside ntial ne ig hb orhoods and may not be appropriate for
mixed-use projects in the d owntown area . As s uch , the DSP allows mixed-use projects
to utili ze alternate deve lo pme nt sta ndards if approved by the City Cou ncil. To approve
the use of alternate development sta ndard s , the Ci ty Co un ci l must make several findings ,
as follows :
1. The project is consistent w ith th e goals and objectives of the DSP and the
General Plan ;
2. The project does not adverse ly affect neig hboring residential and commercial
properties ;
3 . Th e proj ect will provide desired community amenities and increase the mix of
commerc ial/retai l uses in the downtown ;
4 . The proj ect is designed to en han ce the surroundin g neighborhood , prov ide an
exceptiona l high-qual ity archite ctural design , and promote pedestrian activity by
providing pedestrian orien ted d es ign eleme nts and features ; and
5 . The project will he lp th e City meet its s hare of regional housing ne ed and relate d
housing goa ls .
As explained in the attached City Council Resol ution (Attac hm ent "A "), th e project
satisfies each of these findin gs . Staff has worked exten sively with the applicant on the
design of the project to ensure that the findings cou ld be made, in particular findings 2 , 3 ,
and 4 . In an effort to address th ese findings , the applicant substantially re v ised the design
of the project from the original proposa l, including lowering the project from five stories to
four, and increasing th e setback of upper floors along Woodruff Avenue to increase the
distance from the res idential properties to th e north. Staff is also recommending severa l
cond iti o ns of approval to furth e r e nhan ce the design and architectura l quality of the
project and ensure that th e p roject meets finding 4 .
At th e September 13, 2016 , Planning Co mmi ssion meeting , members of the public raised
co nce rn s about traffic issues and th e density and heig ht of th e project. Two specific traffic
issues we re me ntioned involving left turns from Temple Ci ty Boulevard . One conce rn
raised is that the number of ca rs turning left o nto westbound Woodruff Avenue from
northbound T emple City Bou levard will in crease such th at a new t raffic signal will be
re quired t o provide a protected left turn s ign al. Left turn signals can only be i nstalled
when specifi c warrants are satisfied pertaining to traffic volumes , delays, and other
factors . The t raffic study for the project studied this intersection and determined that while
the number of vehicles turn i ng left will i ncrease, the warra nts would not be satisfied to
justify adding a left -turn ph ase , and th e in creased traffic result ing from th e project would
not res ult in a significant impact on the intersection .
City Council
October 18 , 2016
Page 6 of 6
• The consideration of a tentative map as required by Section 6647 4 of the Subdivision
Map Act;
• The consideration of a Major S it e Plan Review as required by Section 9-1 E-2 of the
Temple Ci ty Municipal Code ; and
• The consideration of th e proposed Floor Area Ratio and residential densi ty as required
by Section Ill , Mixed Us e , of the DSP .
Environmental Review
An IS in compliance with the requirements of CEQA was prepared by Rincon Consultants ,
a professional environmental consul ting firm specializin g in CEQA documentation and
comp liance . The IS assessed the short-term , long -term and cumulative environmental
impacts that cou ld result from the project as origina lly proposed . The IS concluded that
the project would not have a sig nificant e nvironmenta l imp act with the incorporation of the
specified mitigatio n measures . These mitigation measures include the revisions to the
or igina l project design that resulted in a lower height and density, as reflected in the
revised project bei ng cons idered by the City Counci l. The MND has been prepared
accordingly pursuant to CEQA.
CITY STRATEGIC GOALS:
Approving the proposed mixed -use deve lopment would further the City Strategi c Goa ls
of Econom ic Development and Susta in able Infrastructure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed project would not have an impa ct on the Fiscal Year 2016-17 City Budget.
The project will result in unknown increased revenues to the City in future fiscal years in
t he f orm of property ta x f rom increased property valuation and sales tax fr om the tenants
of the commercia l space .
ATTACHMENTS :
A. City Co unci l Resolution No . 16-5211
B. IS , MND , and Miti gation Monitoring and Reporting Program
C. Planning Com mi ssion Staff Report and Resolution No . 16-2482
D. Development Plan s
E. RRM Design Review Comments
F. Parking Study
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 16-5211
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY APPROVING FILE NO . 15-280 FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT , A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP , AND A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO
ALLOW A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AT 5935 , 5953 TEMPLE CITY
BOULEVARD .
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE:
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 presentation of project related data and analysis prepared by the
Community Development Department.
2 . The City of Temple City Municipal Code , and all other applicable regulations and
codes.
3. Public comments , written and oral , received and/or submitted at or prior to the
public hearing, supporting and/or opposing the applicant's request.
4 . Testimony and/or comments from the applicant and its representatives submitted
to the City in both written and oral form at or prior to the public hearing .
5. All related documents received and/or submitted at or prior to the public hearing .
SECTION 2. Based on the following prefacing facts as more fully set forth in the
administrative record , the City Council finds that:
1. On September 17 , 2014 , the applicant submitted the application . The application
was for a project proposing a five-story building w ith 15 ,000 square feet
commercial floor area and 75 residential units .
2 . In October 2015, the environmental review for the project was completed . The
Initial Study of the environmental review identified areas of potential impact and
recommended mitigation measures .
3. On March 19, 2016 , the applicant submitted a revised project for review . The
revised project lowered the building from five stories to four stories , with the
commercial floor area reduced to 7 ,250 square feet and the number of residential
units reduced to 61 units . Pursuant to the Initial Study , the revised project had
mitigated the traffic and aesthetic impacts to a less than sign ificant level.
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No . 16-5211
October 18, 2016
Page 2
4 . On August 25 , 2016 , the City published the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration . The Initial Study was made available online and in hard
copies for public to review and comment.
5. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was put in the newspaper at
least ten (1 0) days prior to the hearing .
6. Notice of the September 13 , 2016 Planning Commission Meeting was mailed to
property owners within 500 feet of the property at least ten (1 0) days prior to the
hearing .
7 . Notice of the public hearing satisfied the noticing requirements set forth in
Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091.
8. On September 13, 2016 , the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
review the project. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
that the City Council approve the project and adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
9. Noti ce of the City Council public hearing was put in the newspaper at least ten
(1 0) days prior to the hearing.
10 . Notice of the October 18 , 2016 City Council Meeting was mailed to property
owners within 500 feet of the property at least ten (1 0) days prior to the hearing .
11 . Notice of the public hearing satisfied the noticing requirements set forth in
Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091.
12 .The project site is zoned TC , Temple City Boulevard Commercial.
13 . The project site is designated Commercial by the General Plan .
14. The applicant is propos ing to construct a mixed-use project consisting of 7 ,250
square feet commercial floor area and 6 1 residential condom inium units .
SECTION 3. Based on the public hearing for File PL 15-280 and pursuant to the
required findings for a conditional use permit , the City Council finds :
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size, shape, topography
and circumstances;
The site is 325 feet long and 175 feet deep , containing a land area of
approximately 56 ,875 square feet (1 .3 acres). It is a rectangular-shaped site with
a flat topography. The proposed project, a development of a four-story building
with a one-level underground parking garage, can be adequately accommodated
by the size , the dimension , and the topography of the site . The proposed onsite
City Council of the Ci ty of Temple City
Reso lut ion No. 16-52 11
October 18 , 2016
Page 3
pa rki ng is adequ ate a nd t he e nv ironmenta l re view has concl uded that with t he
m it iga ti o n me asures t he proj ect wi ll not res ult i n a si g ni fi cant impact. T he
pro pose d use of th e com m e rcial sp a ce for restaurant s ha s bee n ana lyzed based
o n t he res ult of a parking stu d y . Staff has co m e to the conclus ion tha t the ons ite
pa rk i ng wo uld be adequa te if th e tota l floor a rea used for restaurants is limited to
5,250 sq ua re feet. Staff also recom mends co nditio ns of approva l, limiting the
ho u rs of o perati o n fo r any f uture rest a u ra nts to betwee n 7:00 a .m . to 10 :00 p .m .
No servi ng a lco holic beverages wou ld be a ll owed unless a new conditiona l
perm it is acqu ired , whic h is subject to a separate public hearing . With the
cond itions of ap proval in pl ace, staff concl udes th at the project meets the f i nding .
2. That the site has 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; and
Th e s ite ca n be accessed throug h two pub lic streets and a n all e y way. Th e pub lic
street on th e east (Temp le C ity Bou leva rd) is a primary road i n the area whic h
has a right-of -way of 80 feet a nd a roadway of 64 feet. T he public st reet on the
north (Woo druff Avenue) is a loca l road wh ic h has a right-of-wa y of 60 feet and a
roa dway of 36 f eet. T he all e y o n th e west is a standard 20-foot roa dway . The
proj ect has bee n resized t o miti ga te the impact identified by th e traffic stu dy
comp let e d fo r th e project. With t he mi t igatio n measures and the conditions of
approval requiring a traffic ca lming pl a n fo r the alley way, t he project will have a
less t ha n si gnifi ca nt im pact a nd is dete rmined to meet this f i nd ing .
3 . That the proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon the use,
enjoyment or valuation of adjacent or neighboring properties or upon the
public welfare .
T he p roposed mixed -use is pe rmi tted in th e Temple C ity Commercial Zone as
designated by th e C ity 's Zo nin g Cod e and Genera l Plan . The site is surrounded
by commerc ia l properties as we ll as high -density res idential uses. No single-
fami ly res id e nti a l zone is loca ted in the immediate proxim ity. The scale of t he
p roject has been res ize d to miti ga t e t he pote nt ia l impact s ident if ied by t he
Mi tigated Ne gativ e Declaratio n ; th e proj ect des ign is found t o ha ve a high level of
compa ti bili ty w ith t he s urrou nd in g land uses ; and conditions of approval will be
imposed on th e proj ect to add ress issues perta in ing to the construct io n activ it ies
a nd th e use of res ta uran t s fo r th e commercial fl oor area. With th e determination
that the proj ect w ill not res ult in any sign ifica nt impact , staff concludes that th e
p roject meets t his fi ndi ng .
SECTION 4. Ba sed o n t he p ubli c hea rin g for Fi le PL 15-280 a nd purs uan t to th e
req u ired findings for a tentat ive map, th e City Cou nci l must deny the project if it ca n
m a ke a ny of the fo ll ow ing fi ndings of Secti on 66474 of th e Subdivisio n Map Act:
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No . 16-5211
October 18, 2016
Page4
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and
specific plans;
The proposed map is consistent with th e designation of the Zoning Code and the
General Plan . The site is in the Temple City Boulevard Commercial District
where a mixed-use development is specifically allowed through the approval of a
conditional use permit. 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 ;
The improve ment of the proposed subdivision will be consistent with applicable
general and specific plans . The improvement will be a four-story, mixed-use
development. Reviews of the project design have been concluded with the
determination that the project will satisfy all development standards prescribed by
the City's Downtown Specific Plan . In addition , the subject site is in an area
which has been identified by the City's 2050 General Plan as a mixed-use zone .
The identification is based on the vision that mixed-use developments will help
the revitalization of the downtown commercial core . Therefore , the project does
not meet this finding .
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development;
The site is physically suitable for the proposed development as the site has a flat
topography with a land area large enough to accommodate the scale of the
development. Off-street parking standards will be satisfied through constructing
an underground parking garage and a parking lot on the ground level. Th e total
parking spaces meet the zoning requirement. Therefore , the project does not
meet this finding .
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development;
In accordance with the Downtown Specific Plan , the City Council can approve a
density for a mixed-use project if found to be appropriate . The proposed density
of 47 units per acre is found to be appropriate based on the lot size and the
project's compliance with all applicable development standards . The scale of the
project has been downsized to address the issues identified by the environmental
document, and a conclusion has been made that the project will not result in any
significant impact. Therefore , the project does not meet this f in ding .
City Council of the City ofT emple City
Resolution No. 16-5211
October 18, 20 16
Page 5
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 subdivision has been reviewed and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration ha s been prepared for the project. Potential sig n ificant impacts
relating to aesthetics and traffic have been mitigated and conditions of approval
will be imposed on the proj ect to minimize construction impact. T he site is
located in a fully urbanized region , whereby there is no potential for the project to
cause enviro nm ental damage o r to injure fish or wildlife. There are no existing
environme ntal conditions or wildlife that cou ld potentially be harmed by the
project. Th e refore , 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 th e subdivision features a four-story , mixed-use building which is
not likely to cause serious public health prob lems . The Mitigated Negative
Declaration has identified all potentials of impact as related to public health such
as the air quality, noise , and co nstruction activities. Measures recommended by
th e Mitigated Negative Declaration have been made to the condit ions of approva l
to minimize the impact. 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
acquired easements for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision.
The tentative map has been reviewed by the City's Engineering Division . Any
conflict with th e public easeme nts caused by the design and the improvement
have been identified or add ressed thro ugh the conditions of approval. Future
easement ded ication afte r the approva l of the tentative map is required to be
reviewed by th e City Engineer, and if applicable , to be subordinated to the public
easement(s). Th erefore , the project does not meet this finding .
City Council of the City ofT emple City
Resolution No. 16-521 1
October 18, 2016
Page 6
SECTION 5 . Ba sed on the public hea ring for File PL 15-280 and pursuant to the
required findings f o r a Site Plan Review , th e City Cou nci l f inds :
1. The construction complies with all applicable provisions of this Zoning
Code .
Th e development plans have been reviewed under the develop men t standards of
the Downtown Specifi c Plan and th e Zoning Code. The project design is found to
be cons istent w ith all applicab le standards . Off-street parking spaces (provided in
a subterranean garage and on the ground level) meet the Zon ing Code
Standards . The setbacks of the upper floors , the building height , and the ope n
space also comply or exceed the Down town Specific Plan specifications .
Therefore , th e project meets this finding .
2. The construction is consistent with the General Plan , any applicable
specific plan, and any special design theme adopted by the City for the site
and vicinity.
The construction of a mixed-use project is consistent with the Commercia l
designation for th e property by th e General Plan . The Downtown Specific Plan
also specifies that a mixed-use proj ect locat ed in the specific plan area can be
approved through a conditiona l use permit. To ensure that the project will be of a
quality design, the City has retained a consultant to review the architectural
plans . The project i n consideration is a revised design in response to the design
review commen ts . Staff also recommends a number of conditio ns for the purpose
of ensuring high qual ity materials and establishing an architectu ral style fo r the
project. Therefore , the project m eets this finding.
3. The approval of the site plan review is in compliance with the Californ ia
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The approva l of the site p lan review is in co mpl iance with CEQA because the
initial study has been comp leted and a Mitigat ed Negative Declaration has been
prepared for th e proj ect. The scale of the development has been reduced to
mitigate the potentially sign ifica nt impacts. After reviewing the revised project
design , staff has concluded that the project will not result in any significant
i mpact. Therefore , the project meets t his finding .
4. The proposed structures , signs , site development, grading and/or
landscaping are compatible in design , appearance and scale , with existing
uses, development, signs, structures , and landscaping for the surrounding
area .
A conceptua l land scaping pla n has been submitted for the project. Before the
issuance of a bu i ldi ng permi t , a detailed landscaping plan will be submitted fo r
review and approval. The gradi ng plan will be rev iewed by the City's Eng ineerin g
Division based on the criteria th at the project will maintain the existing grade to
City Council of the City ofT emple City
R esolu tio n No. 16-52 11
Octobe r 18 , 20 16
Page 7
th e exte nt fea s ibl e . A sig n prog ra m wi ll be re quire d for the p roject to ensure t he
co ns ist e ncy of th e b us in ess sig ns on th e site . Th e project's pro posal of providi ng
larger t ha n required se tbacks fo r th e up per lev e ls , a nd placin g some res id enti al
un its on t he g ro und level w ill have th e effect of enhanci ng its compatibility wi th
the ad j ace nt residential neig hborhoods . T he refore, the proj ect meets this
find ings .
5. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed
structures , yards , walls , fences , parking , landscaping , and other
development features .
Th e si te is 325 feet lo ng a nd 175 feet dee p , co ntai ni ng a la nd area of
approximat e ly 56 ,875 square feet (1.3 acres). Th e proposed project, a mixed-use
bui ld ing w ith fo u r leve ls above th e gro u nd and one level subterranean , can be
adequate ly accommodated by th e dimens io ns an d the size of th e lot. Adequate
off-s tree t parki ng w ill be pro vi ded according t he zon i ng standards . Circulation
des ign fo r th e parking lots has been reviewed by t he City's Engineering D iv ision .
Pedestria n accesses wi ll be pro vided at the loca ti ons recommended by the City
to en hance pe dest rian pa th co nn ect ivity. Th erefo re , t he project meets the finding .
SECTION 6 . Based o n th e pub li c heari ng for Fil e PL 15-280 and purs uan t to t he
required fi ndings fo r t he proposed 1.67 Floor Area Rat io , the City Council finds:
1. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Downtown
Specific Plan and the Temple City General Plan.
T he genera l goa l of the Do wntown Specific Plan calls for a "high quality and
distin ct i mage and a functiona l, v ibrant a nd aesthetical ly pleasi ng downtown fo r
Temp le C it y". Th e Vi sio n State me nt of t he C it y's 2050 Genera l Pl an st ates tha t a
v ita l eco no my is one of t he ma j or goals for th e commun ity to achieve in the
future . This proj ect is consisten t wit h the goals of both the Downtown Specific
Plan and th e Templ e Ci ty Gene ra l Plan , as pro vi d i ng housing opportunities c lose
to commercial uses wi ll prod uce pedest ria n t raffic and promote business
acti vities f o r the area . Therefo re , th e p roj ect meets this finding .
2. The project does not adversely affect neighboring residential and
commercial properties .
T he property is zoned for mixed -use deve lopme nts a nd is surrounde d by a mix of
comme rcia l properties a nd hi gh -density res id ential uses. No single-famil y
residential zo ne is located in th e immed iate p roximity . The scale of the project
has bee n res ized to mitiga te a ny poten ti a l im p a cts identifie d by t he Mitigated
Negat ive De cl aration . Co nd iti ons of approva l will be imposed o n t he project to
add ress te mp o rary impact s ca used by cons truction activities . Therefore , the
project m eets thi s f in ding .
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No . 16-5211
October 18, 2016
Page 8
3. The project will provide desired community amenities and increase the mix
of commercial/retail uses in the downtown.
The project proposes a plaza as an entra nce to the building as well as an
amenity for the street. The plaza will be on Temple City Boulevard and will be
improved with a fountain and decorative paving as well as landscaping . Given
the uniformed look of the street sidewalk which is general concrete paving , a
plaza is a desired open space to encourage local pedestrian traffic. The 61
residential units also have the effect of increasing the residential/commercial ratio
for the downtown area. With residential units constructed in the same area ,
business opportunity for commercial/retail in the downtown area will be
increased . Therefore , the project meets this finding.
4 . The project is designed to enhance the surrounding neighborhood, provide
an exceptional high-quality architectural design , and promote pedestrian
activity by providing pedestrian oriented design elements and features .
With the goal of ensuring a high quality design, the City retained RRM Group to
review the project for the architectural character and massing design . After
receiving comments , the applicant revised the project design in order to address
the issues identified by RRM Design Group . Staff also has recommendations for
the project which have been incorporated in the conditions of approval. The
recommendations will ensure that the building will acquire a defined architectural
style , use various and high quality materials , and enhance the elements for a
pedestrian oriented design. With such conditio ns in place , the project will sa tisfy
this finding.
5. The project will help the City meet its share of regional housing need and
related housing goals.
The project will help the City to narrow the gap between the existing housing
inventory and the projected housing need . According to the 2014-2021 Housi ng
Element of the General Plan, The Regional Housing Needs Assessment of
SCAG has allocated 603 new housing units for the City, among which 351 units
should be for moderate-income and above-moderate-income families. Under
such a background , the construction of this project will help accomplish
approximately ten percent of the total of the allocated new housing units required
by the State, therefore , the project meets this finding .
SECTION 7. Based upon the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
The project has been revised according to the mitigation measures , and the
determination is made that the project will not result in any significant impact on the
environment.
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No . 16-5211
October 18 , 2016
Page 9
SECTION 8 . Accordingly , the City Council adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration
approving File No. PL 15-280, a request for a conditiona l use permit , a tentat ive tract
map , and a major site plan review for th e construction of the mixed -use project , subject
to the applicant comp lyin g with all requirements of the Temple City Municipal Code and
the conditions as set forth in Exhibits A through D to this resolut ion .
SECTION 9 . The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of th is Resolution .
PASSED , APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 2016.
MAYOR
ATIEST:
CITY CLERK
I he reby certify that the foregoing Reso lu tion , Re soluti on No . 16-5 211 , was adopted by the
City Council of the City of Templ e City at a regular meeting held on the 181h of October,
2016 , by the following vote :
AYES : Counc il Membe rs :
NOES : Council Members :
ABSENT: Council Members :
EXHIBITS
A. Planning Division Conditions of Approval
B . Building Division Conditions of Approval
C . Engineering and Publi c Works Division Conditions of Approval
D. L.A. County Fire Department Conditions of Approval
Fi le No. PL 15-280
593 5 Tem ple City Boul eva rd
5. Prio r to building p lan chec k, t he applica nt shall su bmit a completed list and
specifi cat i ons for the exteri or materials to the Communit y Development
Depa rtment for review and approva l. The submittal sha ll include, but is not
limited to:
a. Wind ow type and materials;
b. Des ign and the materia l for the founta in in the courtyard;
c. Spec ificat ion for the moldings, cornices, and other decorative el emen t s;
d. Spec ificatio ns for the score li nes;
e. Spec ificat ions for the stone veneer;
f . Spec ificat ions for t he wrought i ron works on the bu ildin g exterior;
g. Spec ifi cation s for the ground l evel canop i es;
h. Specifications for the trellises of the resident i al un its; and
1. Speci fi cation for the exterior lighting and li ghting fi xtures.
6. Prior to the issuance of the building perm its for the project, the applicant
sha ll submit a detai led landscaping p lan to the Community Development
Department. The detai led landscap in g p lan shal l inc lude, in addition to the
spec ifi cat ion of p lants, t he follow i ng information, subject to the review and
sat isfact ion of the Community Deve lopment Department Director:
a. The color, design a nd type of pav in g for the centra l garden on the
second floor;
b. The co l or, design, and type of paving for the ground l evel p laza ;
c. The color, des i gn, and type of paving for the second floor deck on the
north sid e of the bui lding; and
d . Demonstration that the project has incorporated a mi xture of high
qua lity paving as an alternative to unstained co ncrete including a
mixture of wood (or f aux wood) deck, tile, and pav ing stones.
7 . Occupancy of the commercia l floor area: the allocat ion of commercia l space
between restaurant a nd reta il uses shall not create a park ing demand
greate r than the parking supply as determ ined by the parking demand rates
and peak demand period provided for in th e parking study. In genera l the
project may provide up to 5,250 square feet of resta urant space and 2,000
square feet of retail space . Any modifications to th is a ll ocation o f space
shall be accompanied with a parking table based on the rates in the
attached parking study. No separate cond it i ona l u se permit i s requ ired if a
re staurant will o p erat e betwe en 7:00 a.m . and 10:00 p .m., no alc o holic
be verage s is serve d, and/or li ve entertainm e nt is being proposed . Each
commerci al units shall have a minimum floor area of 1,000 square feet.
Page 2 o f 8
File No. PL 15-280
5935 Temple City Boulevard
8. Separate conditional use permit required: a restaurant proposing to have an
extended hou rs of ope ration beyond the 7:00a.m . to 10:00 p.m. schedule,
and/or serving alcoho li c beverage s as part of the serv ice is required to apply
for a separate conditiona l use permit. Any other use s designated as required
a conditional use permit per the Downtown Spec ifi c Plan sha ll obta in a
separate cond iti ona l use permit b efore open in g.
9. All restaurants are required to install a surve illa nce system, provide
adequate pest contro l, and waste collection services. A 30-day recording
from the surveil lan ce system shou ld be maintained.
10. A. Parking & Loadi ng: No commercial delivery/loading activities shall be
cond ucted at the curbside of Temple City Boulevard and/or Woodruff
Avenue.
B. Parking for Condominium Guests and Customers: the project shall have
signs demonstrating additional customer parking in the subterranean
parking garage. Condominium guest and commercia l parking in the
basement sha ll ha ve sign s prohibiting re sid entia l tenant parking . Signs sh all
be installed prior to a certificate of completed construction or temporary
certificate of occupancy being granted.
11. The project shall be subject to a ll app l icable provi sions of the City's Water
Effic ient Landscaping Ordinance.
Conditions Pertaining to the Mitigation Measures
12. The project shall be subject to all applicab l e provi sio ns of th e City 's Low
Impact Development Standards.
13. During the site preparation an d grading phases, the construction
contractors should minimize the area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth
moving, or excavation operations to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
14. During the site preparation and grading phases , the construction
contractors should treat all graded and excavated m aterial , exposed soil
areas, and active portions of the co n struction site, including unpaved on -
site roadways to minimi ze fugitive d ust. Tr eatm ent sha ll includ e, but not
necessar il y be li mited to, periodic watering, application o f environmenta lly
sa f e so il st ab iliza ti o n materi als, a nd /o r roll com pacti on as appropriate.
Page 3 of 8
,--------------------~----------------
File No. PL 15 -280
5935 Temple City Boulevard
Watering shall be done as often as necessary, and at least t wice daily,
preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day.
15. During the site preparation and grading phases , the construction
contractors should monitor all graded and/or excavated inact ive areas of
the construction site at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabiliza tion
methods, such as wa ter and roll compaction, and environmentally safe dust
co ntrol materials, sha ll be applied to portions of the construction site that
are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations
are planned for the area , the area sha ll be seeded and watered until
l andscape growth is evident, or periodica ll y treated with environmental ly
safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust.
16. During construction, the construction contractors sho uld stop all clearing,
grading, earth moving, and excavation operations during periods of high
winds (20 mi les pe r hour or greater, as measured continuously over a one -
hour period).
17. During construction, the construction co ntra ctors should sweep all on -site
driveways and adjacent streets and roads at least once per day, preferab ly
at the end of the day, if visib l e soil material i s carr i ed over to adjacent streets
and roads .
18. During grading, excavation, and the construction, the project sha ll
implement the recom mendatio ns made in the Report of Geotechnical
Engineering Investigatio n including, but is not limited to, the removal of
surficia l so il s, treatment of removal bottoms, structural backfill , foundation
d esig n, foundation co nstruction, concrete slabs, reta ini ng wall drainage, and
temporary excavation and backfi ll.
19. Prior to the issu ance of build ing permits, the applicant sha ll complete a
human health risk assessment (HHRA) to evaluate the potential for vapor
intrusion of known soil ga s contaminates, the concentration of
trichloroethylene (TCE) and the concentrations of perchloroethylene (PCE),
into the proposed project at levels of unacceptable risk . If an unacceptable
risk is identified, the applicant shall develop a remedial action plan t o reduce
conta minants to below leve l s of regu l atory concern. Any remediation
activities, such as so il vapor extraction, shall be performed by qualifie d and
licen sed professio nal s in the particular probl em identified and all work shall
Page 4 of 8
..--------------------------------------------
File No. PL 15 -280
5935 Tem ple City Boule vard
be performed under t he supervi sion of the appropriate regulatory oversight
program.
20. Prior to the disturbance of any suspect asbestos -containing materials at the
project site, a comprehensive survey designed to determine if the suspect
materia ls are regu lated shall be completed by the applicant. If such
materia ls are identified and need to be disturbed, repaired, or removed, a
licensed abatement contractor sha ll be consu lted to properly remove any
asbestos in accordance with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 1403 .
21. Noi se and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific
location on the Project Site (e.g ., operation of compressors and generators,
cement m ixing, general truck idling) sha ll be conducted as far as possible
from the nearest noise and vibration -sensitive land uses .
22. When possible, construction activiti es shall be schedu l ed so as to avoid
operating several pieces of equipment simu ltaneously, wh i ch causes hi gh
noise levels .
23 . Fl exib le sound contro l curtains sha ll be p l aced around all dri ll ing
apparatuses, drill rigs, and jackhammers when in use .
24 . The project contractor sha ll use the newest availab le power construction
equipment with standard recommended noise shielding and muffling
dev ices.
25. The local power grid shou l d be used for a ll feasible equ i pment to limit
generator noise. No generators larger than 25 KVA should be used and, in
cases where a generator is necessary, it should have a ma xi mum noise
muffling capacity and be operated at the lowest power setting required to
minimize the resulting noi se. All variable message/s i gn boards shal l be so lar
powered or connected to the local power grid.
26. Temporary noise barriers should be made of noise -resi stant material
sufficie nt to achieve a Sound Transmission Class (S TC) rating of STC 30 or
greater, based on sound transmission loss data ta ken according to ASTM
Test Method E90 . Such a barrier may provide as much as a 10 dB inserti on
lo ss, provided it is positioned as close as possible to the noise so urce or to
the receptors. To be effective, the barrier must be long and ta ll enough (at
lea st e ight feet ta ll) to completely block the line -of-s ight between the noise
Page 5 of 8
File No. PL 15-280
593 5 Temple Cit y Bo u levard
source and the receptors. The gaps between adjacent panels must be fi lled
in to avoid having noise penetrate directly through the barrier.
27. All construction trucks shal l be restricted to truck routes approved by the
City, which shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors to the
extent feasible. The contractor shall provide the proposed truck routes to
the City Engineer prior to the i ssuance of demolition, grading, and building
permits.
28. Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction at the project site,
notification shal l be provided to the immediate surrounding off-site
residential and school properties that discloses the constructi on schedu l e,
in cluding the various types of activities and equipment that wou ld be
occurr ing throughout the duration of the construction period.
29. Equipment warm -up areas, water tanks, and equ ipment storage areas shall
be located a m inimum of 45 feet from abutting sensitive receptors .
30. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the appli cant shall prepare and
submit a traffic calming plan for the alleyway to include speed humps, bots
dots, directional paveme nt mark i ng s, speed limit signs (15 MPH ), no parking
signs, and a stop bar at Woodruff Avenue.
31. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the app li cant shall prepare and
submit a pedest rian access and circulat ion plan for the site to include
treatments at the entries/exits of the at-grade parking lot and within the
alley.
Condition Pertaining to the Maintenance of the Property
32. CC&R required : that a method for continua l maintenance of common areas
sha ll be provided in the Cove nants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's);
and that the document sha ll in corporate maintenance provisions for
drainage devices, the ce ntral gard en, the parking lots, the exterior of the
structures and all yard areas determined by the City to be common areas.
Specifically, the CC &R's shall state that it shall be the respon sib ility of the
Homeowner's As sociation to m aintain the exterior of the building in a
uniform color and cond ition. Additionally, the CC&R's shall inc lud e a
provision that th e City of Temple Cit y, L.A. County Sheriff's Department, and
L.A. County Fi re De partment have authorization to fully enforce the "No
Page 6 o f 8
Fil e No. PL 15-280
59 35 Temple City Boul evard
Parking" prohibition in the designated fire lane, including issuing citations
and towing of vehicles parked in said fire lane . The CC&R 's shall preclude
the Association from leasing the guest parking and commercial customer
parking to tenants or owners of the residential units . The CC&R's shall make
it the responsibility of the Association to ensure that commercia l customer
parking and guest parking is not used by residents. The content and the
provisions in the CC&R's sha ll be subject to the review and approval of the
City Attorney prior to approval of the Final Map.
General Conditions
33. The applicant and property owners, and their successors in interest, sha ll
indemnify and defend the City of Temple City and its officers, employees,
and agents from and against all li ability and costs relating to the City's
actions concerning this project, including (without limitation) any award of
litigation expenses in favor of any person or entity who seeks to cha ll enge
the va lidity of any of the City's actions or decisions in connection with this
project. The City sha ll have the so le rig ht to choose its counsel and property
owners shal l reimburse the City's expenses incurred in its defenses of any
lawsuit challenging the City's actions concerning this project.
34. The approval of the project shal l exp ire 24 months from the date of
approval. If the project will not commence or the final map is not to be
recorded prior to the exp iration date, the developer/subd ivider may apply
in writing to the Community Development Department Director at least
forty (40) days before the expiration date for an exten sion of t i me on the
approva l.
35 . Building permits sha ll be obtained for all construction activities of the
project including tenant improvements .
36 . Construction plans or tenant improvement p lans shall include a sheet
contain ing each page of these conditions of approva l at the time of building
p lan check submittal.
37 . Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, a comprehens ive sign
program shall be prepared for the four commercial units w ithin the
deve lopment. The sign program shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Departm ent.
Pag e 7 o f 8
To:
City of Temple City
BUILDING & SAFETY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Michael D. Forbes, AICP, Community Development Director
He sty Liu
From: Building Official/ AJ/DT /JK
Address: 5935 Temple City Boulevard
Application No .: 140000244/TIM No .73 141
Date: 12/5/2014
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Mixed use project con sisting of eight commercial condo units on the ground level and 75
residential con dominium units on the floors of two through five . Parking i s located behind the
commercial units on the ground level as well as in the one-level subterranean parking garage.
1. School Developmental Fees shall be paid to the School District prior to the iss uance of the
build i ng permit.
2. Fees shall be paid to the County of Lo s Angele s Sanitation District prior to iss uance of the
buildin g permit.
3. The building shall be addressed as 5935 Temple City Boulevard, and an application to
assign unit numbers shall be filed with City prior to pl an check submittal.
4. In accordance with paragraph 5538(b) of the California Bu siness and Professions Code,
plans are to be prepared and stamped by a licensed architect.
5 . Structural calculations prepared under the direction of an architect, civil engineer or
structural engineer shall be provided.
6 . A geotechnical and so ils investigation report is required, the duties of the soils engineer
of record , as ind icated on the first sheet oft he approved plan s, shall include the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Page 1/ V.20140822
Ob se rvation of cleared areas an d benches prepared to receive fill ;
Observation ofthe removal of all unsuitable soils and other materials;
The ap proval of so il s to be u se d as fill material;
In spection of compaction and placement of fill;
Application No.: 140000244
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. The t es t i ng of compacted fill s; and
f. Th e in spection of r evi ew of draina ge devices.
7. Th e own e r shall r et ain th e soil s e ngineer preparing the Preliminary Soils and/or
Geotechnical Investigation accepted by the City for observation of all gra din g, site
prepara tion , and compaction testing. Ob se rvation and te sting shall not be performed by
another soils and/or geotechnical engineer unles s the sub se quent soils and/or
geotechnica l engineer submits and ha s accepted by the Public Works Department, a new
Prel im inary Soils and/or Geotechnical Investigation.
8. Prior to permit iss uance the pdf copy of the soil s report shal l be p rovided by the app l icant
9. A grading and drain age pl an shall be approved prior to i ss uance of the buildin g permit.
Th e grading and drainage p lan shall indicate how all storm drainage including contributory
drai nage from adjacent lots is carried to the public way or drainage structure approved
to r ece ive storm water.
10. All State of California disability access regulations for accessibi l ity and adaptability shall
be complied with.
11. Approval is required from the Los Angele s County Health Department for re staurants.
12. The building permit will not be issued until the property has been surveyed an d the
boundaries marked by a land surveyor licen se d by the State of California .
13. Foundation in spection will not be made unti l the excavation ha s been surveyed and the
depth and locatio n of the footings ha s been determined to be in accordance with the
approved plans by a land surveyor licen se d by the State of California. THIS NOTE IS TO BE
PLACED ON THE FOUNDATION PLAN IN A PROMINENT LOCATION .
14. No form work or other construction material s will be permitted to encroach in to adjacent
property without the written approva l of the affected property owner.
15. Separate grease interceptors shall be installed for each restaurant sized per the current
Plumbin g Code but no less than 750 gallon.
16. Electrica l plan check i s required.
17. Mechanical plan check is required.
18. Plumbin g plan check i s re quired .
19. Project shall comply with th e CaiGreen requirements.
20. Demo lition permit is r eq uired for any ex ist in g buildin gs which are to be demolished.
Page 2 I V.20140822 Application No.: 140000244
---·--·-----------------------
21. All fire sprinkler hangers must be de signed and their location approved by an en g ineer or
an architect. Calcu lation s mu st be provided i ndicating that the hangers are de sig ned to
carry the tributary wei ght of the water filled pipe plus a 250 pound point load. A plan
indication this information mu st be stamped by the engineer or the architect and
submitted for approval prior to i ss uance ofthe building permit.
22 . Separate permit i s required for Fire Sprinkl e rs
23. A p arcel/tract map shall be processed prior to i ss uance of the building permit.
24. Projects shall comply with th e requirements of the NPDES (NATIONAL POLLUTION
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM) prior to i ss uance of a Demolition, Grading & Building
permit. These include requirements for sediment control, erosion control, and
construction activitie s control to be implemented on the project site.
25. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program ("SWPPP") is required to be submitted. The
SWPPP shall contain detail s of best management practices, including desilting b as ins or
other temporary draina ge or control mea sures, or both, as may be nece ss ary to control
con struction -related pollutants which origin ate from the site as a result of construction
related activities. No grading permit will be iss ued until the SWPPP ha s been submitted
to and accepted by the building official.
26. For sites where the di sturbed area i s one acr e or more, app lic ants must file a Notice of
Intent (NOI) and a State SWPPP and obtain a Wa ste Di scharge Identification number
(WDID No.). Both the NOI and the WDID No . must be stated on the first sheet of the
plan s.
27 . All a pplicable requirements in the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP)
as one of the model program s under the National Pollutant Di scharge Elimination
Sy stem {NPDES) Permits to develop and implement program s for stormwater
management within the County of Lo s An ge l es shall be complied with .
28. A building shall be considered as se parate and distinct buildings for the purpo se of
determining area limitations, continuity of firewalls, limitation of number of stories and
type of construction shall meet all the cond itions li sted in the Special Provi sion s per
Section 510.2 .
29 . The building below the hori zontal asse mbly p er Condition 6 .2 of Section 510 .2 protec ted
throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in acc ordance with Section
903.3 .1.1 sha ll be permitt ed to be multiple Group A occupancy, eac h with an occupant
load of less than 300 .
Page 3 / V.20140822 Application No.: 140000244
----------~-----------
30. For buildings with more than one story above grade plane and containing mixed
occupancies, the ratio between the actua l building area and allowable area shall not
exceed the values specified in Section 506 .5.2 . Incidental use areas such as lobbies and
storage rooms shall be included in the total aggregate floor area when performing
allowabl e area ca l cu l ations.
31 . Each portion of a building, includin g but not lim ited to the recreation room on the 2nd
floor, shall be individually class ifi ed in accordance with Section 302.1. Where a building
conta i ns more than one occupancy group, the building or portion thereof shall comp ly
with the applicab le provi sion s of Section 508.2, 508 .3 or 508.4, or a combination of
these sec tion s.
32. Individual occupancies shall be se parated from adjacent occupancies in accordance with
Table 508.4.
33. Parking garage not meeting the criteria of natural ventilation per Section 406.3.3 .1 shall
be de signed as enclosed parkin g garage . Mechanical ventilation in accordance with
California Building Code Section 406.4 .2 i s required for the enclosed parking garage.
34. The building elements shall have a fire-re si stance rating not less than that specified in
Table 601 . Exterior bearing walls of Type lilA bu i lding shall have fire-resi stance rating
not l ess than 2 hours.
35. An approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903 .3 .1.1 shall be
allowed to be substituted for 1-hour fire-re sist a nce-rated con struction as required by
Table 601, provided su ch sy stem is not otherwise required by other provi sion s of the
code or u se d for an allowab le area inc reas e in acc ordance with Section 506.3 or an
..:-; · .. -~· allowab le height increase in accordan ce w ith Section 504.2. The 1-hour sub stitution for
the fire re si stance of exterior wa lls shall not be permitted.
36. Exterior wall s shall have a fire-re si stance rating not l ess than that specified i n Table 602.
Exterior non-bearing wal ls of Type lilA building of fire-separation distance equal or more
than 10 feet but l ess than 3 0 f ee t shall h ave fire-resistance rating not less th an 1 hour.
37. Cornices, eave overhan gs, ex terior balconi es and si milar projection s extending beyond
the exterior wall sha ll conform to the requirements of Section 705.2 and Sect ion 1406 .
Proj ection s shall not extend any clo se r to the l i ne use d to determine the f i re se paration
distance than shown in Table 705.2.
38. The ma x imum area of unprotected and protect ed openin gs permitted in an ex t erior wall
in any story of a building shall not exceed the p ercentage s specified in Table 705 .8 . The
ma xi mum area of unprotected and protect ed op enings pe rmitted in an ext erior wa ll of
an enclose d parking ga ra ge equipped with automatic fire sprin kler s of fire se paration
di stan ce equal or more than 10 feet but l ess th an 15 feet on the first floor are 45 % and
45 %, re spectively.
Page 4 I V.2014082 2 Application No.: 140000244
,----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. Interior ex it stairways and ramp s sh all terminate at an ex it di scharge or a public way.
Interior exit stairways and ramps shall be permitted to terminate at an exit pas sageway
complying with Section 1023, provided the exit pa ssage way terminates at an exit
discharge or a public way.
40. Dwelling units in a building consisting of three or more dwelling units or four or more
condominium units shall meet the requirem ents of the California Building Code Chapter
11A.
41 . Common-use area s se rving multifamily dwellin gs shall m ee t the requirements of the
California Building Code Chapter 11A.
42. When ass ign ed parking space s are provided for a resident or a group of re sidents, at
least 2 percent of the ass igned parking space s se rving covered multifami ly dwelling units
shall be acce ss ible in each type of parkin g fa ci lity. At least one space of each type of
parking facility shall be made accessible eve n if th e total number exceeds 2 percent.
43. Accessibility to public buildings, public accommodations, commerci al buildings, an d
public hou sing shall comply with Chapter 11B ofthe Building Code.
44. Parking spaces complying with Section 118-502 sha ll be provided in accordance w ith
Table 118-208.2 except as required by Sections 118-2 08.2.1, 118-208.2.2 , and 118-
208.2.3 .
The following are general requirements:
1. The initial plan check fee will cove r the initial plan check and one rec heck only . Additional
review required beyond the first recheck sha ll be paid for on an hourly ba sis i n accordance
with the current fee schedule .
2. The second sheet of building plans is to list all conditions of approval and to include a copy
of the Planning Commiss ion Decision letter. Thi s information shall be incorporated i nto
the plan s prior to the first submittal for plan check.
3. When a change of occupancy results in a structure be ing reclassified to a higher
occupancy category, as p er CBC 3406.4 the structure shall conform to the se ismic
requirements for a new structure.
4. Addition s, alterations, repairs and changes of u se or occupancy in all bu i ldin gs and
structure s shall comply with the provision s for n ew buildin gs and structure s except as
otherwi se provided in Chapter 34 of th e Building Code in effect .
Page 5 I V.20140822 Application No .: 1 40000244
5. South Coast Air Quality Management Di strict must be contacted prior to any demolition
or renovation. Call {909) 396-2000 for further information. Failure to comply with the
provisions of Rule 1403 may result in a penalty of up to $25,000 per day.
6. For all restaurants if not already ex i st in g, a grease interceptor shall be installed in
accordance with the current Plumbing Code.
7. All fire spr inkler hangers must be designed and th eir location approved by an engineer or
an architect. Calculations must be provided indicating that the hangers are de signed to
carry the tributary weight of the water filled pipe plus a 250 pound point load. A plan
indication this information must be stamped by the eng in eer or the architect and
submitted for approval prior to issuance of the building permit.
8. A geotechnica l and soils investigation report is/will be provided for any of the fo llowin g
conditions:
a. A tract or parcel map is be ing processed as part of the development.
b. The allowable soil bearing press ure used for the foundation design exceeds 1,5 00
pounds per square foot.
c. Subterranean work which is deeper than three feet at any point mea sured from
the top of adjacent grade.
d. Unu sual soi ls conditions are encountered which effect the design or stability of
the structure.
9. Where a soi ls report is required , the duties of the soi l s engineer of record, as i ndicated on
the first sh eet ofthe approved plan s, sh all include the following:
a. Observation of cleared areas and benches prepared to receive fill ;
b. Observation of the removal of all un suitable soils and other material s;
c. The approval of soils to be used as fill material;
d. In spect ion of compaction and placement of fill;
e. The testing of compacted fills; and
f. The in spection of review of drainage devices.
10. The owner shall retain the soi ls engineer preparing the Prelimin ary Soi ls and/or
Geotechnical Investigat ion accep t ed by the City for ob servation of al l grading, site
preparation, and compaction testing. Observation and testing sha ll not be performed by
another so il s and/or geotechn ica l engineer unless the sub sequent so i ls and/or
geotechn ical engineer subm its and ha s accepted by the Public Works Department, a new
Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical Inve stigation .
11. A permit from CAL -OSHA shall be obtained prior to i ss uance of the buildin g permit for
construction of trenches or excavation s greater than five feet in depth ; the construction
of any building, structure, sca ffolding or fal sework more than three stories or 36 feet in
height; or the demolition of any building or structure, or the dismantling of sca ffolding or
f alsework, more than three stories or 36 feet in hei ght.
Page 6 I V.20140822 Appl ication No.: 1 40000 244
12. Projects shal l comply with the requirements of the NPDES (NATIONAL POLLUTION
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM) prior to i ss uance of a Demolition, Grading & Bui lding
permit. These include requirements for sediment control, erosion control, and
construction activities contro l to be implemented on the project site .
Pa ge 7 I V.20140822 Application No .: 140000244
City of Temple City
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
To: Michael D. Forbes, AICP, Community Development Director
He sty Liu
From: Office ofthe City Engineer /DR/YR
Address: 5935 Temple City Boulevard
Application No.: 140000244/TIM No.73141
Date: 12/8/2014
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Mixe d u se project consisting of eight co mmercia l condo units on the g round l evel and 75
residential condominium units on the floors of two through five. Par king is loca ted behind the
commercial units on the ground level as well as in th e one-level subterranean parking garage.
ENGINEERING FEES
1. Prior to i ss uance of grading, building or other permits as appropriate, the applicant shall
pay all necessary fees to the City.
2. If a new sewer line/connection is installed, a fee will be required in addition to the fees paid
to the County of Lo s Angeles Sanitation Di strict, and shall be pa id prior to building permit
issuance. Contact the Utilities Department for further information.
3. A separate public works permit and payment of f ee is required for all work in the public
right-of-way.
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIREMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
Separate plan s for improvements within the public ri ght-of-way are not required. However, prior
to iss uance of a building and/or grad in g permit, a ll nece ss ary improveme nts within the public
right-of-way shal l b e shown on building or grading pl an s in accordance with estab li shed City
standard s or as directed by the City Engin ee r and/or hi s/h er de sig n ee .
Page 1 Application No.: 140000244
The following are required for the off-site improvements:
Temple City Boulevard & Woodruff Avenue
1. In stall new curb ramp at the corner of Tem pl e City Boulevard and Woodruff
Avenue i n accordance with SPPWC Sta ndard Plan 111-5 an d as directed by the
Ci ty Engineer or hi s/her de si gnee .
2. In st all n ew driveway app ro ach in accorda nce with SPPWC St andard Pl an 110-2,
and as direct ed by the Ci ty Engineer or hi s/her de signee.
3. Close existing drive way apron, and install n ecessa ry improve m ents (parkway,
land sc ape , sidewal k, curb and gutter, an y others as applicable) to match
required adjacent sect ion s, an d as direct ed by the City Engi neer or hi s/her
de signee.
4. In stall new concret e sidewalk along the lengt h of the property frontage in
acc o rdance w i th SPPWC Stan da rd Plan 113-2, and as directed by the City
En gineer and/or his/h er designee .
5. In sta ll new curb and gutter along th e l ength of the prop erty frontage in
acco rdanc e with SPPWC stand ard pl an 120-2, and as direct ed by the City
En gi neer or h is/her desig n ee.
6 . In stall n ew st reet li ght to match ex i st ing street li ght st and ards in th e st reet block,
and as directed by the City En gin eer or hi s/h er des i gnee.
7. Rehabilitate ex i sting AC st re et pavement alon g the lengt h of the property
frontage to the cente rlin e of th e stree t as indica t ed b elow, and as direct e d by
the City En gineer or his/h er de signee:
Grind existi ng pavement to a depth of 2" and overlay n ew AC.
8 . Underground all se rvice s to th e prop erty.
The following are general requirements for off-site improvements:
1 . All im provements are to b e de signed, i nst a lled an d comp l eted at t he so le
ex p en se o f the app l ica nt/d eveloper/property own er .
2. Th e app lica nt/deve lop er/p rop erty own er shall design and construct th e
Page 2 Application No .: 140000244
----------------------------------------------------------
Page3
improvements to the sa tisfaction and approval of the City Engineer or hi s/her
designee .
3. All work shall be done in accordance with Standard Plans for Public Works
Construction (SPPWCL and/or as directed by the City Engineer or his/her
designee .
4 . Project shall meet all requirements of the National Pollutant Di sc harge Elimination
System (NPDES} related to pollutants; runoff or non-stormwater discharge s.
5. A ll existing damaged or off-grade curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be removed
and replaced as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
6. Any existing improvements damaged or made off-grade during construct ion,
shall be removed and replaced in accordance with appropriate standards, and
as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee .
7. Bench Marks, Center Line Ties, and any other Survey Monumentation, shall be
estab lished and/or replaced accordingly at the completion ofthe project.
8. New trees shal l be one ofthe approved types by the City for trees in public right-
of-way, or as d i rected by the City Engineer or his/her designee. Trees shall be
installed in the parkway with a low drip irri gation system. Root barriers shall be
installed. A 48"x48" street tree cover shall be installed where required by the
City Engineer or hi s/her de signee.
9 . When required, existing street pavement shall be rehabilitated along the length
of the property front age to the centerline of the street as indicated below, and
as directed by the City Engineer or hi s/her de signee :
In sta ll Type II slurry on existing AC pavement.
or
Grind exist ing pavement to a depth of 2" and overlay new AC.
or
Remove and recon struct existing pavement. New street section to match
existing adjacent street sect ion , but shall not be less than 4" AC, 4" CAB on
95% compacted ba se.
or
Pay in-lieu fee for the required rehab to the City. City will u se the in -lieu
fees in the future for street rehabilitation s as necess ary.
10. All new driveways shal l be according to SPPWC Standard Plan 110-2, Type B or
C with the minimum width established by Planning and/or Lo s Angele s County
Fire Departm e nt.
Application No.: 140000244
11 . All existing noncomplying driveway aprons shall be constructed in accordance
with applicable SPPWC standard s.
12 . Top of driveway apron X shall be 5 f ee t minimum from any trees, power poles,
traffic signa l controllers, electric se rvi ces or simi lar improvements in the public
right of way.
13. When requ i red, all existing driveways aprons to be clo se d shall be removed and
replaced with necessary improvements (parkway, land sca pe , sidewalk, curb and
gutter, any others as applicable) to match require d adjacent sections, and as
directed by the City Engineer or hi s/her designee.
14. All existing an d propo sed utilities shall be co nveyed to the si te undergrou nd .
15 . New street lights shall match existing st reet light sta nd ards in the street block,
and as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
If required by City, a bond shall be provided for required Public Improvements . Bond Cost for
the Public Improvements shall be calculated based on latest cost unit prices adopted by the
County of Los Angeles.
Page4 Application No.: 140000244
TRACT MAP REQUIREMENTS
Following information is provided for applicant's convenience. Project shall comply with all
applicable requirements for Tract Maps.
1. A final tract map prepared by or under the d i rection of a registered civil engineer or licen se d
land surveyor shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Temple City prior to being
filed with the Los Angele s County Recorder .
2 . A so il s report is required .
3. A preliminary tract map guarantee shall be provided which indicates all trust d ee ds (to
include the name of the trustee), all easement holders, all fee interest holders, and al l
interest holders whose interest cou ld re sult in a fee. The account for this title r eport shall
remain open until the final trac t map is filed with the Lo s Angele s County Recorder .
4 . 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, all ey, highway, right of access,
building restriction, or other easements until after the final tract map is approved by the
City of Temple City and filed with the Lo s Angele s County Recorder; unle ss such easement
is subordinated to the propose d 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.
5. Monumentation oftract map boundaries, street centerlines, and lot boundari es i s re quired
if the map is based on a field survey.
6. All conditions from City of Temple City Departments and Divisions shall be incorporated
into the tract map prior to submitting the tract map for review.
7. In accordance with California Government Code Sections 66442 and/or 66450,
documentation shal l 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 al so be provided.
8 . Proof of Ta x clearance shall be provided at the time oftract map review submittal.
9. Upon submittal of the parcel map for review by the City of Temple City, a letter signed by
both the subdivider and the engineer shall be provided which indicates that these
in dividual s agree to submit one (1) blueprints and one sepia mylar and pdf copy on a CD of
the recorded map to the City of Temple City Public Works Department.
10. Prior Building and Grading Plan submittal for review, a traffic and parking st udy is to be
prepared by a California-registered professional traffic engineer following the City's traffic
study guidelines. The developer's traffic consu ltant should consult with the City's traffic
engineer to determine the scope of study before proceeding w ith the preparation of traffi c
study.
11. Access to parking areas is shown to be v i a the existing 20ft all ey co nnectin g the City
parking lot on the so uth to Woodruff Avenue on the north. Ba se d on the trip generation
estimate, a se parate sect ion on accessibi lity and capa city of this alley mu st be includ ed in
Page 5 Application No.: 140000244
the traffic st udy.
12. A signage and striping plan for internal circulation within the parking garage has to be
submitted for the City's traffic engineer's review and approval prior building permit
i ss uanc e.
13. Additional conditions may be required per findin gs of the sa id traffic study.
14. Alley dedication may be required if Fire De partment requires the alley to be enlarged.
15. Prior to final map approval the subdivider sha ll submit sewe r plans to upgrade of the
sewerage sys tem as found to be inadequate per the sewer area study prepared by Cal Land
Engineering (Se gment MH 281 to MH 507 is inadequate).
16. Prior to final map approval City may r equire a performance bond to ensure the upgrade of
the sewe r main.
Page 6 Application No.: 140000244
Terraces at Temple City
Draft
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepa red bt;:
City of Temple City
9701 Las Tunas Drive
Templ e C ity, CA 91780
Hesty Liu, AICP, Associa te P lanner
(626) 285-2171
Prepared with the assistan ce of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
180 North Ashwood Avenue
Ventura, California 93 00 3
Aug u s t 201 6
17tis report is printed on SO% reCJjcled pa pe r.
Te rraces at Temple Ci t y
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table of Contents
Pa e
Initial Study ................................................................................................................................................. 1
1. Projec t Title: ............................................................................................................................. 1
2. Lead Agen cy Name and A ddress: ....................................................................................... 1
3. Contac t Person and P h o ne N umber : ................................................................................... 1
4. Project Location: ..................................................................................................................... 1
5. Project Spon sor's arne and Address ................................................................................. 1
6. Genera l P la n Designation: ..................................................................................................... 1
7. Zoning: ..................................................................................................................................... 1
8. Description of P rojec t: ............................................................................................................ 1
9. Sun·ow1.d ing Land Uses a nd Settin g: ................................................................................... 5
10. Other P ublic Agencies Whose Approva l is Required: ...................................................... 5
Environmental Fac tors Potentially Affected ...................................................................................... 9
Determination ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Environmental Checklist .................................................................................................................... 11
I. Aes the ti cs .......................................................................................................................... 11
II. Agric ulture and Forest Reso urces ................................................................................. 23
III. Air Quali ty ........................................................................................................................ 24
IV. Biologica l Resources ........................................................................................................ 31
V. Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 32
VI. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 33
VII. Greenho use Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 37
VIII. Hazards and Hazardou s Ma te ri als .............................................................................. .44
IX. Hydrology and Water Q ua lity ....................................................................................... 49
X. Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................. 52
XI. Min eral Reso urces ........................................................................................................... 54
XII. Noise .................................................................................................................................. 54
XI II . Population a nd Housing ............................................................................................... 64
XlV. Public Services ................................................................................................................. 65
XV. Recrea ti on ......................................................................................................................... 69
XVI. Tr ansporta ti o n /Traffic .................................................................................................... 70
XVI I. Utili ti es and Se r vice Sys tems ......................................................................................... 79
XV III. Mand ator y F in dings of Significance ............................................................................. 84
References ............................................................................................................................................. 86
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................... 86
Persons Contacte d ........................................................................................................................... 88
List of Figures
Figure 1 Region al Locatio n ....................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Project Location ........................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3 Si te P lan ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 4a Site P h o tos ............................................................................................................................... 12
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negati ve Declaration
Figtu·e 4b Site Photos ............................................................................................................................... 13
Figtu·e Sa Shadow Analys is -S umme r ................................................................................................. 15
Fi gure Sb Shadow An a lys is -Win ter.. .................................................................................................. 17
Figure Sc Shadow Analys is -Mitigated ............................................................................................... 21
Lis t of Tables
Table 1 Project Ch aracteri s tics .................................................................................................................. 4
Ta bl e 2 Health Effects Associa ted w i th Crite ria Pollutants ............................................................... 25
Ta bl e 3 SCAQMD Ai r Q u ali ty Significance Tlu-esh olds .................................................................... 26
Table 4 SCAQMD l.STs for Constru c ti on ............................................................................................ 27
Table 5 Estim a te d Con s h·ucti on Maximum Dail y Ai r Pollu t:mt Entission s .................................... 29
Ta bl e 6 Estimated Project Operation a l Emission s ............................................................................... 30
Table 7 Estima ted Co ns h·uction Emiss ions of Greenh o use Gases .................................................... 39
Table 8 Combined Annua l Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ............................................................. 40
Table 9 Projec t Con sisten cy w ith 2006 CAT Report Greenho u se Gas Entission Redu ction
S trategies ................................................................................................................................... 41
Table 10 Pr ojec t Con sis tency with A pplicable A tto rney General Greenho use Gas Redu cti on
Measures ................................................................................................................................... 43
Table 11 Temple City Gen er al So und Level S tandards ...................................................................... 57
Table 1 2 Noise Meas w ·e m ent Res ults ................................................................................................... 58
Table 13 Operational Roa dway Noise Ex p os ure ................................................................................. 60
Tabl e 14 Vibra ti on So urce Leve ls for Con s h·ucti on Equipment.. ...................................................... 61
Table 15 Typical Noise Leve ls a t Construc ti on Sites ........................................................................... 62
Table 16 Los Angeles County Traffic Impact Crite ria ........................................................................ 71
Ta ble 17 Projec t Trip Gen e ra ti on ........................................................................................................... 72
Table 18 Exis tin g+ Projec t Leve ls of Se rvice -A.M. Peak Hour.. ..................................................... 73
Ta bl e 19 Exis tin g+ Project Levels of Service -P.M. Peak Hour ....................................................... 74
Table 20 Cumula ti ve Le vels of Service-A.M. Peak Hour ................................................................ 75
Table 21 C umula ti ve Levels of Se1vice -P .M. Peak Hour ................................................................. 75
Table 22 Was tewater Generation To tals for the P roposed Project.. .................................................. 83
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Californi a Emissions Es timator Model (CalEEMod) O utput
Repo rt of Geotec hnical En gineering Inves ti gation
P h ase I En vironmental Si te Assessm ent and Phase II Subs urface Inves tigation
Noise Measureme nts, Data, and Model Output
Los An ge les COLmty Sheriff's Departmen t -Response to Request for Sheriffs
Se r vice Information
City of Temple City Traffic and Circula ti on Study
Sewer Area Study
ii
Terra ces at T emple City
Initial St udy-Mitiga t ed Negat ive Declaration
T a ble 1
ro ec a rac ens 1cs P t Ch t . f
Lot Size 1.3 acres (56,875 sf)
G round Floor: 15,000 sf (8 com mercial units)
Level s Two: 27 ,220 sf resi d en ti al
P ropose d New Bui ld ing Floor Area Leve l Three : 27,220 sf resi de ntia l
Le ve l Four: 27 ,220 sf residen tial
Level Five : 27,220 sf residential
T otal Resid ential = 108,880 sf
Lot Coverage 41 ,500 sf (72 .9%)
Commercial P arking = 64 s paces and 2 lo ad ing spa ces
o n g roun d floo r level
P arki ng Residentia l Parking = 150 total spaces (12 ground fl oor
and 138 subterranean)
1 0 b icycle space on qround fl oor level
Prop osed New Build ing Floor Area 2 .18 Rati o (FA R )
P ro posed New Bu ild ing Height He ight of roof: 59 feet
Ma x he ig ht of a rchitectu ral el eme nt: 6 4 feet
Resid e ntia l Open Space 10,846 sf Central Garde n o n Level T wo
On-si te Landscaping 6,0 27 sf
Fl oors two to fi ve would include 75 r es idential cond ominiums con sisting of 20 on e-be droom
units, 47 two-be droom uni ts and 8 three-bedroom uni ts. The second fl oor would al so include a
central garden . Primary p a rking fo r th e residentia l muts wo uld be located in a s u b terranean
g m·age tha t is on e level d eep a nd conta in 138 s p aces .
Vehlcu lm· access fo r th e ground fl oor parking l o t would be provi d ed by tw o drivew ays th a t
w o u ld se rve b o th inbotmd and o utbo und tr affic. On e d riveway would be loca te d off of
W ood r uff Avenue and ano the r on th e r ear alley. An additional p m·king lo t exit (outbound
b:affic o nly) would also be l oca ted in the residential parking are a of the grotmd fl o or lo t. The
alley is accessible fro m W oodruff Avenue.
Vehlculm· access fo r the residential s u b te rranean pm·king would be provided tlu·o u gh on e
drivew ay l oca te d off of tl1e rear alley that wou ld serve bo th inb ound and o u tbound tr affic. The
r esidential subte rranem1 p ar king gar age w o uld r es trict access to r esiden ts o nly tlu·ou g h a
secmi ty gate.
P ed estri an access to the gr o und-floor level conunercial s p aces would be provided o n Tem p le
City Bo u levm·d as well as fr om tl1e rear g r o und level p a rking lo t. Ped es tri an access to tl1e
r esidential uses o n levels two to fi ve would be provided tltro ug h a lobby o n Temple Ci ty
Bo ulevard a11d two s tairwells located a t the rea r of build ing a dj acent to the a ll ey. A five-foo t
w id e fu·efigh ter access w alkway would be p r ovide d o n the soutl1 si d e of tl1e p roject si te adjacen t
to an exis ting 3 foot wall , w luch would r e m ain.
Te mpl e City
5
Te rraces at Temple City
Initial Study -Mitigated Negative Declaration
Pedes b:i an access to the g round-floor level conuner cial s paces would be provide d o n Temple
City Boulevard as well as fr om the r ear gr o und level parking lot. Pedesb·ian access to the
reside ntial uses on levels two to five would be provide d through a lo bby o n Te mple City
Boule vard and two stairwells located a t the rear of build ing adj acent to th e a ll ey. A fiv e-foo t
wide fu·efighter access walkway would be provide d on the sou th side of the p roject site adjace nt
to an existing 3 foot wall , which would remain .
The proj ec t would include new landscaping on the ground floor level to taling 6,027 sf.
The proposed site plan for the p r ojec t is provided in Figure 3 .
Constru ction of the projec t would occm over a 24 month perio d . T h e project would involve the
demolition of an existing on site s b·uctmes including 5,210 sf of commercial s p ace, an existing
parking lo t, an d exi s ting foundation from previous uses.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The proj ec t s ite is locating in an urbanize d se tting s mrounded by a mix of :r esidential and
commercia l uses as follows:
North: Woodru ff Avenue and multi-family r eside ntial
East: Temple City Bo ulevard, commercial u ses (re tail and res taurants), and multi-family
residential
South: Commer cial u ses and Las Tw1as Drive
West: P ublic alleyway, commercial uses, public parking lo ts, and multi-family r esidential .
Regional access to the p roject site is provided by Inters ta te 21 0, lo cated approximately 2.9 miles
north of the project site, and Inte rs ta te 10, located approxima tely 2.4 miles south of the project
s ite.
Th e n eares t schools are Pacific Friends Sch ool located 0.3 miles no r th, Longden E lementary
Sch ool located 0 .35 miles north, and Ooverly Elementary located 0.5 miles south.
10. Other Public Agencies Whos e A pproval is Require d:
No other agency approvals are required .
Temple City
5
-----------------------------
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
77tis page intentionally left blank.
Temple City
6
Terraces at Temple C1ty
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Th e environmental factors ch ecked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving a t leas t on e impac t tha t is "Potential ly Signifi cant" o r "Pote ntially Significant U nless
Miti ga ti on Incorporated" as indicated by th e chec kli s t o n the foll owing pages.
• Aesthetics 0 Agr ic ulture and Fores t 0 Air Quality Resources
0 Biological Resources 0 C ultural Resources • Geology /Soils
0 Greenhou se Gas • Hazm·ds & Ha zard o us 0 Hydrology /Water
Emissions Mate ri a ls Quality
0 Land Use/Plamting 0 Mineral Resources • Noise
0 Population /Housing 0 Public Se rvices 0 Recrea tion
• T ransportation /Traffi c 0 Utilities/Service Sys te ms • Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Temple City
9
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaratio n
DETERMINATION
On the basis of thi s initi a l evaluation:
0
•
0
0
0
I find tha t the proposed projec t COULD OT have a significant e ffect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DE CLARA TIO w ill be p re pared.
I find that al th o u gh the proposed projec t co uld have a significant effec t o n th e
e n v iromne nt, the re will no t be a s ignificant effec t in this case because revisi ons in the
project have been made by or agr eed to by th e projec t proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DE CLARATIO w ill be prepared.
I find that the proposed projec t MAY have a s ignificant effec t o n the environme n t, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially s ignificant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitiga ted " impact on th e environment, but a t least on e
e ffec t (1) has been adequately anal yzed in an earlier docume nt pursuant to applicable
lega l standards, and (2) h as been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
ear lie r analysis as described on atta ched sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is r eq uired , but it mu st analyze only the e ffec ts that re main to be addressed.
I find that althou gh the proposed projec t co uld h ave a s ignifican t e ffec t o n the
e nv ironme nt, beca use all po te ntial s ignifican t effec ts (a) h ave been analyzed
adequately in an ea rli e r EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoide d or mitiga te d purs uant to that ea rlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including re visi ons o r mitigati o n measw-es that are
imposed u pon the proposed projec t, notlung further is re quired.
Signature Da te
Templ e City
10
Terraces at Temp le City
Initial St udy-Mitigated Negative Declaration
ENVI RONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impa ct Incorporated Impact Impact
I. AESTHET ICS
--Would the Project:
a) Have a substantia l adverse effect on a
scenic vista? D D D •
b) Substantially damage scenic re sources ,
includ ing , but not limited to, trees , rock
outcroppings , and historic bu ild ings wi th in
D D D • a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visua l
character or quality of the site and its
D • D D surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
D D • D nighttime views in the area ?
a) Would the proj ec t lwve a sub stantial adve rse effec t on a sce ni c vista ?
b) Would th e projec t sub s tantially dama ge sce ni c resources, including, but not limi ted to, trees, rock
outcroppin gs, and hi stori c buildin gs within n state sce ni c lzighwa y?
Th e project s ite is located in an u rbanized area. Th e si te and surro w1.din gs are re lative ly flat.
Th e re are no s ig nificant vistas within or adjacent to the projec t s ite. 1l1.e site does not contain
a ny scenic resources such as trees, rocks, or o utcr oppings. The projec t site is not located near or
within the viewshed of a scenic h ig hway. Additionally, the re ar e no d esignated historic
resources within the City. 1l1ere fore, the propose d project would have no impa c t on scenic
vis tas or scenic resow-ces.
NO IMPACT
c) Would the projec t substantially degrade the exi s tin g v isual clzara cter or qualihJ of the site and its
surroundin gs?
As illu s trated in photo 1 of Figure 4a, the northe rn p o rtion of the projec t site is curre ntly
developed with commercial r e tail and res taura nt uses. As illu s trated in photo 2 of Fi gw-e 4a, tl1.e
southern portion of tl1 e project site was previously deve loped, but development has bee n
partially demolishe d. A concre te founda tio n remains on the so utl1.e m portion of the project site,
w hich is surrounded by chain-link fencing on all s ides .
City of Temp le City
11
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Stu dy -Mitigat ed Nega t ive Declara t ion
The proposed project w o ul d red evelo p th e site with a mixe d-use d evelopment that would be
fiv e stori es tall with a m aximum roof h eight o f 59 feet and architectural e le m ents up to 64 feet.
Comme rcial uses would be located on the botto m a nd residential w1its would be located o n
levels two through five .
The propose d d evelopment would change th e exis ting visua l ch a racter of the site by
red evel o ping a site th a t is currently d evelo ped witl1 on e-s t01y commercial us es and p arking o n
half tl1e site and vacan t on the o th er h a lf. Beca use a portion of tl1e site is vacant, tl1 e proposed
five-st01y mix ed -use d evelopment could improve tl1 e visual quali ty of tl1 e site . H o w ever, the
propose d projec t would be of la rger scale and mass tl1 <m adjacent u ses and w ou ld change tl1e
visual ch aracter of tl1e ne ighborhood . Photos 3 and 4 o n Figme 4a, illus a·a te residential u ses
loca ted just n o rth of the projec t site across Wo o druff Ave a nd across tl1e alley to tl1e w es t. The
swT o w1d ing r esidential u ses a re multi-family r esiden ces one and two stories tall. Ph o tos 5
tl1.r o u gh 7 on Fig ure 4b illusa·a te the comme rcial d evelopment located east of tl1e project site
acr oss Te mple City Boulevard and soutl1 of tl1 e proj ect site along Temple City ~o ulevard. Ph o to
8 illustra tes tl1 e vie w of commercial d evel opment soutl1 of the projec t si te loca te d on th e n o rth
s ide of Las Tunas Drive. A ll co mmer cial d evel opment in tl1e imme dia te vicinity of tl1e project
site i s one -s tory tall . Two-s tor y commercial d e vel opment is located a pproximate ly 340 fee t &om
the s ite o n tl1e soutl1w est corner o f Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard.
The pro pose d projec t is tltree to fo ur stories ta ll er tl1an n e ighbOI;ng buildings; tl1er efor e, it
would cast longer sh a d ow s tl1an exis ting uses. The residential uses to the north and wes t are
con sider e d sh a d ow sensitive u ses.
h1 general, shadows cas t by buildings are s hortes t on the s ummer so ls ti ce Gune 21) and longest
on tl1e winter sols ti ce (December 21). The projec ted summer so lstice sh adows are illus tr a te d on
Fi gure Sa . During summer mornings, shadows w o uld fall to the w es t, and would proj ec t onto
tl1e east side of tl1e two-s tor y multi family r eside n ce located along the public a lley. Sh adows
would no t last for mor e tl1 an fom h o urs . As tl1e day progresses, morning sh adows would move
eastward. A t n oon, shadows &om tl1e proposed projec t woul d be minimal and would n o t
p r ojec t o nto any adjacent prope rti es. The proj ec t's sh a d ow would len g tl1en toward the eas t
thr o u gh o ut the afte rnoon dming summer, fallin g onto the re tail buildings located eas t o f tl1 e
projec t s ite on tile ea stern si de of Te mple City Bou levard. Th e majority of these buildings would
be shade d by tile propose d project; h oweve r, tll er e ar e no o utdoor ar eas o r otller li g ht sen sitive
us es a t this loca tion. Shadow impacts ar e co n s ider ed s ignificant if li ght-sensitive u ses would be
shaded by projec t-related s b·u ctures for more than fo ur hours between ea rl y April and la te
October (including tl1e summe r sols ti ce ) be tween the h o urs of 9:00 AM and 5:00PM. Beca use
shadows would not fa ll over tl1e res idences w est of tl1 e proj ect site for m o re tl1 an four h o urs and
would n o t affect lig ht-sensitive uses a t til e co mme rcial buildings loca ted on Temple City
Boulevard , s ignificant sh adow impacts wou ld not occ ur on the s ummer sols ti ce.
The projec ted winter sol s ti ce sh a d ows are illu s!l·a ted o n Figure Sb. During tl1e winte r, shadows
would projec t onto u ses located n ortll and w es t of tl1 e project s ite be tween 9:00 AM and 10:00
AM. These u ses include Woo droof Avenue, mu l ti-fa mily residen ces, a public all ey, and p ublic
p ark lo t. At 10:00 AM sh a d ows sh orten and ar e cas t in a northwest direc tion and co ntinue to
fall o n tile same uses as 9:0 0 AM w i th less multifamily r es idences bein g affec ted north of
W oodroof Avenue . A t n oon, sh adows sh o rten and a re cas t to the n o rtl1 , continuing to fall onto
r C ity of Temple City
14
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
TI1is page intentionally left blank.
City of Temple City
16
-------------------·--------------
TMTttJK~H•tT~Crty
Mlllt-tH Negd..,. O.dar111Son
Proposed Pl an
Winter Solstlco. ~. 21
3
9:00am
!
1:00pm ~-·
r
10:00am
··' 2:00pm
-------------
·~
. .. (1 ~ 11:00am
I
... ~,, 3:00pm
t7
.s '· .& ~ . .
., ..
r.• .., 12:00am . ~..a ,,,
I
·,\:
Shadow Study
Ft re5b
Cltyol Temple City
Terra ces at Temple C ity
Initial Study-Mitigated Nega tive Declaratio n
Woodroof Avenue and the front ya rds of the multifa mily residences directl y n orth of tl1 e projec t
site. By 3:00 PM, the shadows le n g tl1en and are cas t in th e northeaste rl y direc ti on, falling onto
tl1 e multi-family residenc es to the north east and commercia l r e ta il buildings on th e soutl1east
co rner of Temple City Boulevard and Woodruff Aven ue . Sh adow impacts are considered
significant if li ght-sens iti ve uses would be sh aded by project re lated s tructw·es for m ore than
tlu·ee h o urs between late Oc tober and ea rl y A pril (including the winte r sols tic e) between tl1e
ho urs of 9:00AM and 3:00 PM. A t the mu lti-family res id ences loca ted immediately n o rtl1 of tl1e
projec t si te on the n o rtl1 side of Woodruff Avenue (9563, 9567, and 9571 Wo odruff) sh ad ows
w o uld fall for over three ho urs and wou ld be potentially s ignificant unless mitiga ti on is
inco rpo rated .
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED
d) Wou ld the projec t create a new source of sub stantia l li ght or glare whi ch would adverse ly affec t day or
nighttime v iews ill the area ?
The projec t s ite is in a highly urbanized area w itl"l high levels o f e xisting lig hting . The a djacent
co mme rcial, residential, and roadway uses genera te li ght and glare along a ll s ides of the projec t
si te . Primary sources of li ght a dj acent to the projec t s ite include li ghting assoc ia te d witl1 the
ex is ting comme rcial and residential buildings including building m ow1te d lighting and
h e adlights from vehicl es in th e parking a reas. The primar y source of g lare a dj acent to the
p r oj ec t s ite is the s w1' s refl ec ti on from me tallic and glass s urface s on vehicles parke d in ons ite
and nearby parking lots.
Th e pro p osed projec t would create new sources of li ght and glar e on tl"le projec t site. The
southe rn portion of tl1e projec t site is vacant and d oes n o t contain sources of li ght and glare. Th e
n o rthern p ortion is d eveloped with commercial u ses tl1at gen e ra te li g ht and glar e. The proposed
project would inco rporate ex terior li ghting, in the fo rm of parking lo t li ghting, pedes tria n
walkway lighting, building m o w1ted li ghting, and o tl1er safety related li ghting. Th e windows
proposed on the ex teri or e levations co uld increase tl1e re fl ec te d s tmli ght during certain times of
tl1 e day. Th ese li ght sources would not h ave a significant impact on the night sky, as they would
only incre mentally add to tl1e exis ting backgro w1d li ght le ve ls already present as a r esult of th e
s urrounding urban deve lopment.
In addition, th e proposed project wou ld be re quired to co mply with Special Development
S tandards for the C-2 zon e beca u se it's adjac ent to an R zon e. Th ese requirem ents are id entified
in Sec ti on 9-lN-32 o f the Mmticipal Cod e . Tn regards to li ghting the co d e sta tes tha t " ... A ll
outdoor li ghting sh all be co ns tructe d , opera ted, and maintaine d so as to elimina te any
inter fe r ence with, or nui sance to such a dja cent R zoned properties .. "
As n o te d above, tl1e project site is in a n urban environment witl1 nume rous ex is tin g sources
li ght of g lare. Th e proposed projec t would n o t s ubs tantially alter thi s condition a nd would be
require d to a dhere to Mwlicipal Code re quirem en ts regar ding li ghting. Impacts rela te d to
proj ec t li ghting and glare would be less than significant.
LESS THAN S IGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Temple City
19
Terra ces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measure
Miti ga ti on Measm e AES-1 would be r equire d to redu ce any potential aes thetic impacts from
sha dows to a less than s ignificant le ve l.
AES-1 S hadow Re duction. The applicant sh a ll revise the projec t d esign to reduce
sh adows on n eighboring r es idences loca te d on Woodruff Avenue throu gh
comple tin g on e o f the following o ptio ns:
a) Re duced Building H eight and Ve rtical Se tbacks . TI1e height of th e
building s hall be red u ced by 10' 3" reducing the building fro m five
fl oors to four fl oors. Additionally, the ve rtical setback on the 4th floor
on the north s ide of the projec t a dja cent to Woodruff Ave nue sh a ll be
incr eased by 16' from the edge of the eas tern m ost balcony. Revised
plans shall be submitted to the City for r eview and approval prior to
approval of a building permit.
b) Pro ject Re d esign a nd Shadow Analysis. The a pplicant sh all red es ign
the proj ec t as to not cas t sha d ows on n e ighboring li ght-sensitive uses
for m or e than fo ur h ours between early A pril and late October
(incl uding s ummer solstice) between the h ours of 9:00 AM and 5:00
PM or for more than three h our s be tween la te October and early April
(incl uding the winter solstice) between the h o urs of 9:00 AM and 3:00
PM. The a pplicant shall submit r evised plans and a sh adow impact
analys is to the City fo r revie w and a pproval ptior to issuance of any
Bu ilding o r G rading P ermit.
Implementation of AES -1 wo uld resu lt in a sh orter duration(less than three h o urs) in which
sh adows would be cast onto multifamily residen ces north of the projec t site on Woodruff
Avenue (9563, 9567, a nd 9571 Woo d ruff Avenue) as s h own in Figure 5c, which models op ti on
AES-1b. Impacts would be less than significant with implem entation of AES-1 .
r 20
City of Temple City
Terraces at Temp le City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Un less Le ss than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impa ct
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
RESOURCES
--In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are sign ificant
environmental effects , lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessm ent Model
(1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland . In determ ini ng whether impacts
to forest resou rces , includ ing timberland ,
are s ignificant environmental effects , lead
agencies may refer to information compile d
by the Ca lifornia Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection regarding the state 's
inventory of fores t land, including the
Forest and Range Assessment Project and
the Forest Legacy Assessment Project;
and forest carbon measurement
methodology provi d ed in Forest Protocols
adopted by the Califo rn ia Air Resources
Board .--Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland , Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farm land ), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency , to non-D D D • agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultu ral
D D D • use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or
timberland zoned T imberland Production
(as defined by Government Code Section
D D D • 51104(g))?
d) Resul t in the loss of forest land or
conversion of fores t land to non-forest
use? D D D •
e) Involve other cha nges in the existing
environment which , due to their location or
nature, could result i n convers ion of
D D D • Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
City of Temp le City
23
Terrace s at Temp le City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Dec laration
a) Wo ul d the projec t co nve rt Prime Fa nn/a/1£/, Uni que Far mlm zd, Fan nland of Statewide Im portance
(Farml and), as slz own on the maps prepa red pur suallt to tlze Fa rmland Mapp i11g and Mo nitoring
Prog ram of tlze California Reso urces Age zz et;, to 110 11-ag ri cultural use?
b) Wo uld tlze project co nfli ct with existi11 g zonillgfor ag ricultural use, or a Wil/iamso 11 Act con trac t ?
c) Wo uld the project co nfli ct with existing zo 11i11gfor, or ca use rezo ning of, fo res t land (as defi ned in
Publi c Resources Code Sec ti on 12220(g)), timberl a11d (as defi ned by Pu bli c Resou rces Code Sectioll
4526), or tim berland zo ned Tim ber/am/ Produ cti on (as defi ned by Govern ment Code Sec ti on 51104(g))?
d) Wo ul d th e projec t res ult in th e loss of fo res t lmzd or co nve rsion of fo rest la nd to non-fo rest use?
e) Wo ul d tlze projec t in volve other clzmzges in tlze exis ting envi ronm ent wlz ich, due to thei r location or
11ah~re, co ul d res ult in co nve rsion of Fa rm la nd, to nozz-ag ria tl tura l use?
T he proje ct s ite is within a hig hly urba nized are a in T e mple City. The Ci ty does n o t contain an y
agricultural land, agriculturally zone d lan d , land w1de r Williamson A c t c ontrac t, or forest land
(Te mple Ci ty Ge n e ra l Plan, 1 987; Califo rnia De partme nt o f Con s ervatio n , 201 3). The projec t
would h a ve n o e ffe ct on fo r es tland o r ilie conve rs io n o f farml and to n o n-agri cultura l u ses.
NO IMPACT
Potentially
Significant
Pote ntially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Ill. AIR QUALITY
-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstru ct implementation of
0 0 • 0 th e applicable air qu ality plan?
b) V iolate any ai r quality standa rd or
contribute substa ntiall y to an existing or
0 0 • 0 projected a ir quality violation?
c) Result in a cumu lative ly cons iderable net
increase of any crite r ia pollutant for whi ch
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient a ir
quality standard (inclu d ing releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
0 0 • 0 thresholds fo r ozo ne precursors)?
d) Expose s ensitive receptors to substantial
0 0 • 0 pollutant co ncentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
0 0 • 0 s ubsta ntia l number of people ?
City of Temple City
24
Terraces at Temple City
Initial St udy -Mitigated Negative Dec laratio n
The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (the Basin), which is under the jmisdiction
of the South Coas t Air Quality Management Disb·ict (SCAQMD). As the local air quality
management agen cy, the SCAQMD is r e quired to m o nitor ai r pollutant leve ls to ensu re th at
s tate and federal air quality s tandards are met and, if they a re not m e t, to d evelop s b·ategies to
meet the standards. Depending on wheth er or not the s tandards are me t o r exceeded, the Basin
is classified as being in "attainment" o r "n onatta inment." The h ealth effects associated with
criteria pollutants upon which attainment of state and federal air quality standards is
measm ed are described in Table 2.
Table 2
Health Effects Associated with Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Adverse Effe cts
Ozone (1) Short-term exposu res: (a) pulmonary function decreme nts and l ocalized lung edema in humans
and animals and (b) risk to public health imp lied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host
defense i n animals; (2) long-term exposures: risk to public health implied by altered connective
tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and
pulmonary function decrements in chron ically exposed humans; (3) vegetation damage; and (4)
property damage.
Carbon (1) Aggravation of ang i na pectoris and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (2) decreased
monoxide exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (3) impairment of
(CO) central nervous system functions ; and (4) possible increased risk to fetuses .
Nitrogen (1) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups;
dioxide (N02) (2) risk to public hea lth impl ied by p ulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes
and pulmonary structural changes; and (3) contribution to atmospheric discoloration .
Sul fur diox ide (1) Bronchoconstriction accom pa nied by symptoms tha t may include wheezing, shortness of breath,
(S02) and chest tightness during exercise or physical activity i n persons with asthma .
Suspended (1) Excess deaths from short-term and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in
particulate pulmonary function , especially in children ; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction ; (4)
matter (PM1o) adverse bi rth outcomes inclu d ing low birth we ight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) i ncreased
respiratory symptoms in children such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for
both card iovascular and respiratory disease (including asthma).a
Suspended (1) Excess deaths from short-and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in pulmonary
particulate function , especially in children ; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth
matter (PM2 s) outcomes, incl ud ing low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory
symptoms in children, such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both
ca rd iovascular and respiratory disease, including asthma .
Source: EPA, 2008c.
Th e Basin in which the proj ec t site is locate d is a non-attaimnent ru·ea for the federal standards
fo r ozone, PM2.s and lead and the s tate s tandards for ozone PM w, PM2.s, ~ ru1d lead. Thus,
the Basin curre ntly exceeds several sta te and fed eral ambient air quality stru1dru·d s and is
required to implement sb·ategies to reduce pollutant levels to r ecognized accepta bl e standa1·ds.
This non-attainmen t s tatus is a result of several factors, the primary ones being tl1e naturally
adverse meteorological conditions tha t limit tl1e dispersion and diffusion of pollutants, the
limited ca p ac ity of the local airshed to eliminate air pollutants, and the number , type, and
d en si ty of emission sources w itlun the Basin.
The SCAQMD has adopted an Air Quality Management Plru1 (AQMP) that provides a s u·ategy
for tl1 e attainment of state and federal air quality standru·ds. The SCAQMD r ecommends the
use of quantitative tl1.resh olds to d e termine the s ignificance of temporary consb·uction-rel ated
pollutant emissions and proj ec t operations. These tlu·esholds are s h own in Table 3.
r City of Temple City
25
Terraces at Temp le Ci ty
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaratio n
Table 3
SCAQMD A i r Quality Significance Thresholds
Mass Daily Thres holds
Pollutant
Operation Thres holds Construction Thresholds
NO x 55 1bs /day 10 0 lbs/d ay
ROG1 55 1bs/day 751bs/day
PM1o 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/d ay
PM 2s 551bs/day 551bs/day
SOx 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
co 550 lbs/da y 550 lbs/da y
Lead 3 1bs/day 31bs/day
1 Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) are formed during combustion and evaporation of organic
solvents. ROG are also referred to as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC).
Source: SCAQMO, http ifwww.aqmd.gov/ceqalhandbooklsignthres pdf. March 2011
Th e SCAQMD h as also d eveloped Localized Signifi cance Threshold s (LSTs). LSTs we re devised
in r es p onse to con cem r eganiing exposu re of individuals to criteria p o llutants in l ocal
communities. LSTs re present th e ma ximum e m issions from a project tha t will not cause or
conh·ib ute to an air quality exceedance of the m ost sh·ingent applica ble federal or state a mbie nt
air quality standard a t the n earest sen s itive r ece ptor, taking into conside ration ambie nt
con centra ti on s in each SOlll'Ce rece ptor area (SRA ), projec t size, and distance to the sensitive
r ece pto r. H owever, LSTs o nly apply to e missi ons w ithin a fixed stationary l oca tion, including
idling e missions during bo th project con s b·u c tion and operation . LSTs have been d eveloped for
N Ox, C O, PM10 and PM2.s . LSTs d o n o t a ppy to m obil e sources s u ch as ccu·s on a roadway (Fina l
Localize d Significance Thres h old Method o logy, SCAQMD, Jtme 2003). As s u c h , LSTs for
operational e missions do n o t apply to on s ite d evelopme nt as the m a jo ri ty of e miss io n s would
b e generate d by cars on the r oadways.
LSTs h ave been d evel ope d for e missions within a reas up to fiv e acr es in size, with air p o llutant
m od e ling recomme nded for ac tivity within larger a reas . Th e SCA QMD provides lookup tables
for project sites that measure one, two, o r five acres. The proposed project invo lves 1.3 acres of
o n-site construction . SCAQMD' s Samp le Constructi o11 Scenarios for Projec ts Les s tl u111 5 Acres in
Size contains m e thodology for d e termining the tlu-es h o ld s fo r projects that are n o t exac tl y 1, 2,
or 5 acr es in size. This m e th o d o logy was imple m e nte d to d e termine tl1.e tlu-eshol ds for tl1.e
proposed project. The project s ite is loca ted in Source Receptor Area 9 (S RA-9, Ea s t San Gabri el
Vall ey). LSTs for con sh·u ction o n a 1.3 acre si te in SRA -9 are sh own in Table 4 . LSTs are
provide d for r ecep tors a t a distance of 82 to 1,640 fee t fro m the projec t site bo unda ty. According
to tl1 e SCAQMD's publi ca tio n Final Locali ze d Signifi cant (LST) 17mslwld s Me thodo l og~;, projects
with boundcu·ies loca ted closer tl1.cu1. 82 fee t to the n ea res t r ece ptor shoul d u se the LSTs fo r
recepto rs located at 82 feet. In additio n , tl1.e u se of LSTs is vo ltmtcuy, to be imple m e nte d a t the
d iscretion of local agen cies.
City of Temple City
26
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 4
SCAQMD LSTs for Construction
Allowable emissions from a
Pollutant 1 .3-acre site in SRA-9 for a
receptor 82 f eet away
Gradual conversion of 101 NOx to N02
co 722
PM1o 6
PM2s 4
Source http://www. aqmd. govldocsldefault-
source/ceqa/IJandbook/localized-significance-thresholdslappendix-c-
mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. October 2009
a) Would the project co nfli ct with or obstruc t implementa tion of the applicable ai r qua lihj plan?
Ve hicle u se, e n e rgy conswnption, and associate d air p ollutant e missions ar e dire ctly re l ated to
popula tion growtl1. A projec t m ay be inconsistent with the AQMP i.f it w o uld gen e rate
popula ti on exceeding tl1e forecas ts u sed in the d evelo pme nt of tl1e AQMP. The pro p osed
project includes 75 r eside ntial units. The ave rage p er son s per household in the City is 3.09;
tl1 ere fo r e, the project could gen e r ate up to 232 n e w reside nts. The exi sting popul ation in tl1e
City is 36,275 (Department of Fina nce, 2 015). Based o n Southe rn California Association of
Gove rnments (SCAG) projections, which are u sed in tl1e d evelopm ent o f the AQMP, the City
will h ave a 2035 population of 39,000. TI1e a dditio n al 23 2 residents tl1 a t could be generate d by
tl1 e pro p osed projec t would not ca use the City to exceed the SCAG fo recasts. TI1 e refore, the
project would not conflict wi tl1 the AQMP and impacts would be l ess than s ignificant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b) Would the proje ct v iolate an y air qunlihj stan dard or con h-ibu te sub stantially to an existin g or
projected air qua lihj v iolation?
c) Would the projec t res ult in a cumulativel y considerable net increase of any criteria poilu tant for which
the projec t region is non -attainme11t under n11 appl icable federal or state ambien t air qualihJ standard
(i ncluding releasing emiss ions which exceed quantitative thres holds for ozone preatrsors)?
d) Would the project expo se sensi tive recep tors to subs tantial po llutant concentrations?
Th e proposed proje ct w o u ld gen e ra te te mporary con s tructi on e missions and l ong-te rm
o p e r a tional e mission s.
Co nstnt ction Emi ssio ns
P roject consh·uc tion w o uld gen erate temp onuy air p o llu tant e missions. These im pacts are
associated w ith fugitive dus t (PM1o and PM 2.s) and exha u s t e missions from h eavy con s tructi o n
City of Temple City
27
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
vehicl es, in addition to reac ti ve organic g ases (ROG) th a t wo uld be re leased during the drying
phase upon a pplica ti on of architec tural coatings.
Emiss ions associa te d with the pro pose d proje ct w ere es tima te d us ing th e California Emiss ion s
Es timator Mod e l (CalEEMod) version 201 3.2.2. Comple te Ca lEE Mo d results and ass umptions
can be vi ew ed in Appendix A. Consb·uction o f the project would occ ur over a 24-month p e rio d.
Th e proj ec t would involve the d e molition o f ex isting ons ite s b·u ctures including 5,210 s f of
co mme rc ial space, an existing p arking lo t, and ex is tin g fo unda ti o n fro m pre vious uses.
Demolition and g ra ding phases involve the greates t amount of h eavy e quipme nt and the
gr eatest gen eration of fugitive dust. Fo r th e pmposes of con s b·ucti on e missi ons m odeling, it
was assumed that the projec t would comply with the SCAQMD Rule 403, w hich identifies
measures to reduce fugiti ve dus t and is req ui red to be imple mented a t all consb·uc ti on s ites
located w ithin the So uth Coast Air Basin. Ther efor e, the fo llowing condition s, which would be
require d to r educe fugiti ve dust in compliance wi th SCAQMO Rul e 403, w er e include d in
C alEEMod for the site pre p arati o n and g rading phases o f cons b·uc ti on .
1 . Minimization of Disturbance. Con s b·u c ti o n conb·ac to rs sh o uld minimize the area
disturbed by clearing, grading, ea rth m oving, o r excavation o peration s to prevent
excessive a mounts of dust.
2. Soil Treatment. Cons b·u ction conb·ac tors sh ou ld b·ea t a ll g raded a nd excavated
materia l, ex p osed soi l a reas, and ac tiv e portion s of th e con s b·u c ti o n site, including
unpaved o n-si te roadways to minimize fugitive dust. Treatmen t shall include, but no t
necessarily be limite d to, p eri o dic wa te ring, applica tion of enviro nmentally safe so il
stabilization mate ri al s, and/ or ro ll compac ti on as a ppr opriate. Wate ring sh all be d one as
ofte n as necessary, and a t leas t twice daily, prefera bl y in the late m o rning and after work
is d o ne fo r the day.
3 . Soil Stabilization. Con structi o n conb·ac to rs sh o uld moni to r all g rade d and/ o r
excava te d inactive ar eas of the co n s b·uc ti o n site at least weekl y fo r dust s tabilizati on .
So il s ta bil iza ti on me tho d s, s u ch as water and roll compaction, and environme n tally safe
dust control mate rial s, shall be applie d to p o rtio ns of the cons truc ti on si te th at are
inactive for ove r four d ays. If n o fmther gracling or excavatio n oper ations are p laru1 e d
for the ar ea, the area sh all be seed ed and watere d un til landscape growth is evid ent, or
periodically b·eate d with environmenta lly safe dus t suppressants, to prevent excess ive
fugitive dus t.
4. No Grading During High Winds. Co ns tructi on co ntracto rs sho uld s to p all cl earing,
grading, earth m oving, and excava ti o n o p e ra tions during periods o f hig h winds (20
miles per h our o r grea te r, as m easure d continuo u sly over a one-h o ur peri o d ).
5. Street Sweeping. Construction conb·ac tors sh o uld sw eep all on-site driveways and
a dj acent s h·ee ts and road s at leas t once pe r day, pr efe rably a t the end of the d ay, if
visible soil mate rial is ca rri ed over to adjacent sb:eets a nd road s.
T h e architec tura l coating phase invol ves the greatest release o f ROG. The emissions m o d eling
a lso includes the u se o f low-VOC paint (15 0 g/L fo r n onfl a t coa tings) as require d b y SCAQMO
Rul e 1113.
City of Temple City
28
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 5 summ a ri zes the es tima ted maximwn d ai ly emissions of pollutants durin g cons truction
on the project site .
Table 5
Estimate dC onstruction Maximum Daily Air Polluta nt Emissions
M aximum Da ily Em issi ons (lbslday)
Construction Phase•
ROG NOx co PM 1o PM 2.s SO x
2017 Maximum Daily Emi ssionsb 3.5 4 1.8 31 .5 5 .0 2.8 0 .1
2018 Maxim um Daily Emi ssionsb 46.4 19.6 21.2 2 .3 1.4 <0 .1
2019 Maxim um Daily Emissio nsb 46.3 1.9 2.8 0 .3 0 .2 <0 .1
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 55 150
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
2017 Maximum On-site NIA 26 .6 20 .9 3.7 2 .5 N/A Emissionsc
2018 Max imum On-site NIA 17 .3 13 .4 1.1 1.0 N/A Em ission sc
2019 Maximum On-site N/A 1.8 1.8 0.1 0 .1 N/A Em issionsc
Local Significance Thre sholds NIA 101 722 6 4 NIA (LSTs)(On-site only)
Exceed SCAQMD Thres h o lds NIA No No No No NI A or LSTs?
• Grading phases incorporate anticipated emissions reductions from the conditions listed above, which are required by
SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust. The architectural coating phases incorporate anticipated emissions reducti ons
from the conditions listed above, which are required by Rule 1113.
b See Table 2. 1 "Overall Construction-Mitigated" of summer and winter emissions CaiEEMod worksheets in Appendix A.
Assumed compliance< LST's only include on-site emissions. LSTs for a 1.3-acre site in SRA-9, see Table 4.
NI A = Not applicable
As shown in Ta ble 5, with adher en ce to SCAQMD Rules 403 and 1113, pr ojec t construction
emissio ns would n o t exceed SCAQMD regional or local significance thresh o lds for any criteria
p ollutants . Impacts fr om con stru ction emiss ions would be less than s ignificant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Lon g-Tenn Emis sions
Long-te rm emissions associa ted with project o pe ration, as sh own in Ta bl e 6, wo uld in clude
emiss io ns from ve hicl e b.·i ps (mobile sources), natural gas use (ene rgy sources), and landscape
m aintenance equipment, conswner prod ucts a nd a rchi tectu ra l coatin g associa ted with onsi te
d evelopment (a rea sou rces).
City of Temple City
29
Te rraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emi ssion s would n ot exceed SCA QMD thresh o lds for any criteri a pollu tant. Consequently, the
impac t of the pro p osed projec t's o perational emiss ions on regional a ir quali ty unde r tlu·esh o lds
b), c), and d), w o uld be les s than significant.
Table 6
s 1ma e ro1ec 1pera 1ona Ef tdP. tO f IE . miSSIOnS
Estimat ed Emissio ns (lbs/day)
Sources
ROG NOx co PM 1o PM z.s
Area 5 .0 0.1 6 .2 <0 .1 <0.1
En ergy 0 .1 0.7 0 .5 0.1 0 .1
Mobile 4 .6 10.8 43.4 8 .0 2 .2
Total Emissions (l bs/day) 9.7 11.6 50.2 8 .0 2 .3
SCAQMD Threshold s 55 55 550 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No
Source: Calculations we re made in CaiEEMod. See Table 2.2 ·unmitigated Operational" in CaiEEMod summer
emissions worksheets in Appendix A
Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
LESS 1HAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e) Would th e project crea te objectionabl e odo rs affech'ng a subs tan h'alnumber of people?
SO x
<0 .1
<0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
150
No
Th e p ro p osed projec t includes co mme rcial and residential uses . The comme rcial uses would be
a mix of r esta urant and re tail. Restamant uses h ave the p otential to gene ra te o dors associated
with cooking and pre p aring food . H owever, offi ce, retail , and restauran t uses are n o t li s ted on
Fi g ure 4-3 of the 19 93 SCAQMD CEQA Air QualihJ Handb ook as uses th a t require an alysis of
o d o r impac ts . Su bstantial o bj ec ti o nable o dors ar e norma ll y assoc iated wi th su ch us es as
agric ulture, was te water tr ea tm ent, indus trial facilities, o r landfills. The refore, the proposed
p rojec t would not gen er a te o bj ec ti onable odors aff ec tin g a subs tantia l number o f peo ple.
Impacts would be less than s ignificant.
LESS 1HAN S IGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Temple City
30
Terra ces at Temp le City
Initial Study-Mitig ate d Neg ative Declara ti on
Potentially
S ignificant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorpor ated Impact Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
-Would the project:
a) Have a substantia l adverse effect, either
directly or through hab ita t modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate ,
sensitive , or s pe c ial status species in loca l
o r reg ional plan s, polici es , or regulations,
or by the Californ ia Department of Fis h
and Wildlife or U .S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? 0 0 0 •
b) Have a substantial a d verse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identifie d in local or regional
plans, policies , or regulations , or by the
Cal ifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife
0 0 0 • or U .S . Fish and W ildl ife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of th e Clean Water Act
(including, but not li m ited to , marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal , fill ing , hydrological interruption ,
0 0 0 • or other means?
d) Interfere substa ntially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or m ig ratory wildl ife corridors , or
impede the u se of native wildlife nursery
0 0 0 • sites?
e) Conflict w ith any local p olicies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
0 0 0 • policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict w ith the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conse rvation Plan , or othe r
approved lo cal, regional , or state habitat
0 D 0 • conservation plan?
a) Wo ul d th e projec t ha ve a sub stantial adve rse effect, eitlt er dire ctly or tit rough lt ab itat modifi ca tions, on
any species iden tified ns a candidate, se nsitive, or specia l stahts species i11 loca l or regio nal plan s, policies,
or regula tions, or by the California Deparhuen t of Fish and Wild lzfe or U.S . Fish and Wildltfe Serv ice?
City of Temp le City
3 1
Terraces at Temple City
In itial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
b) Would the project ha ve a substa11tial adverse effec t 0 11 any riparian habitat or oth er se nsitive natural
co mmuni h) identified in loca l or regio nal plans, policies, or regulations, or by tlte California Departm ent
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice?
c) Would the project have a substantial adve rse effect on federally pro tected wetlands as defin ed blj
Sec ti on 404 of the Clea n Water Act (including, but not limited to, mar sh, ve ma[ pool, coas tal , etc.)
througlz direct removal, fillin g, hydrol ogica l interruption, or other mean s?
d) Would the projec t inteJfere sub stantially with th e move ment of any native res ident or migrn tonJ fish or
wi ldltfe species or with es tabli shed native res ident or migmtonJ wi ldlife co rridors, or impede the use of
native wi ldlife nurse n1 sites?
e) Would th e project confl ict with any loca l poli cies or ordinan ces protecting biologica l res ources, such as
a tree preservation poliClj or ordinance?
!J Would th e projec t co nfli ct with the prauisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan , Natural
Co mmunity Conserva tion Plan , or oth er appraued loca l, regional, or state ha bi tat co ns erva ti on plan?
The project s i te is located in a highly urbanize d area. In addition , th e site has been disturbed to
accommodate past and present onsite d evelopment and is currently covered wi tl1. structures, as
described in ilie Project Desc ription. Th e projec t site lacks native biol ogical h abitats, including
w e tlands. Th e refo re, site d evelopment would not adversely affec t sensi tiv e p lant o r animal
s pecies, nor would it inter fe re wi ili ilie provis ions of any adopted ha bi tat con se rvation plan. No
impacts to biological r esources would occ ur.
NO IMPACT
Potentially
Significant
Pote ntially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
v. CULTURAL RESOU RCES
--Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a h istorical resource as
D D D • defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
D D • D resou rce as defined in §15064 .5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
pa leontological resource or site or unique
D D • D geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human r emains, includi ng
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? D D • D
City of Temple City
32
Terraces at Temple City
In itial Study-Mitigated Negative De claration
a) Would the projec t cau se a subs tantial adver se change in the significan ce of a hi storica l reso urce as
defin ed in §15064.5?
The project site is d eveloped and is vacan t on the sou thern portion of the si te with existing
commercial uses on the northern portion of the site. All existing buildings on site would be
demolished as part of the project. Exis ting buildings located on the project si te a re illusb·ated in
pho to 1 of Figure 4b. 'D1e buil dings are typical strip commerci al structures.Temple City d oes not
have any designated National, State, o r Local historic landmat·ks (Te mple City, 1987).
Demolition and red evelopment of the projec t site wou ld not result in a significant adverse
impact to historic reso m ces.
NO IMPACT
b) Would the projec t cause a substantial adve rs e chan ge in the sig nifi cance of an archaeol ogical resource
as defin ed in §15064.5?
c) Would the projec t directly or in direc tly des troy a uni que pal eo ntologi cal reso urce or site or uni que
geologic f eature?
d) Would th e proj ect di sturb any human remain s, including th ose interred outside of f ormal cemeteries?
b-d)The project site is within a hi ghly urbanized area. In addition, the site has been distmbed to
accommodate past and present on s ite d evelo pment and is currently covered witl1 s b·uctmes in
tl1 e northern p ortion and cem ent foun d ation in the southe rn p ortion. The re is n o ev idence th at
a1·c haeological or paleontological reso mces or human remains al'e p resent onsite. In the unl ikely
e vent that sud1 resolll'ces are unearthed during excavatio n and grading, a pplicable re gulatory
requu·ements pertaining to the handling and b·eatrnent of s uch resources would be followe d . If
al'c haeological or paleontological reso m ces are id entified, as defined by Sec ti on 2103.2 of th e
Public Resources Co d e, the si te would be required to be tr e ated in accordance witl1 the
p rovisions of Sec tion 21083.2 of the P ublic Resources Code as appropriate. If human remams a1·e
une ru·thed, State H ealtl1 and Safety Co d e Sec ti on 7050.5 re quir es that no furtl1 e r disturbance
shall occm tmtil th e County Cor on er h as made th e necessa1y findings as to origin and
disposition p urs u ant to P ublic Resour ces Code Sec ti on 5 097.98. Wi tl1 implem e ntation of these
s tan dard requi rem ents, impacts would be less th an significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
--Would the project:
a) Expose pe ople or struct ures to potentia l
substantial adverse effects , including the
risk of loss , injury, or death involving :
i) Rupture of a known earthquake faul t ,
as delineated on the most recent
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
3 3
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
Less than
Significant
Impact
•
No
Impact
0
City of Temple City
Terraces at Temple City
Initia l Study-Mitigated Neg ati ve Declaration
Potentially
S ig n ificant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorpo rated Impact Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
--Would the project:
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist fo r the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fau lt?
ii ) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 • 0 0
iii) Seismic-related ground failure ,
0 0 0 including liquefacti on? •
iv) Landslides? 0 0 0 •
b) Result in substantia l so il erosion or the
loss of topsoil? 0 0 • 0
c) Be located o n a geologic uni t or so il that is
unstable as a res ult of th e project , and
po tentially resu lt in on-or off-site
landslide , lateral spreading , subsidence ,
0 0 • 0 liquefaction , or coll apse ?
d) Be locate d on expansi ve soi l , as defined
in Table 1-B o f the Uniform Building Code,
c reating substantia l risks to life or
0 • 0 0 property?
e) Have soils incapab le of adequately
supporting the use of septic tan ks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewe rs are not available for the
disposal of wastewa ter? 0 0 0 •
This section is based in part on the Feb rua ty 25, 2015, Quar tech Consultants (QCI) Repo rt of
Geotechni ca l Engi nee rin g ln ves tigah·on fo r the proposed projec t. This report is included as
Appendix B. The purpose of the investiga ti on was to evalua te the s ubsw·face condi tions at the
are a of proposed consb·uction pertinent to g ra ding, founda ti on design as well as o ther geologic
ch aracteristics exis ting on the site . Th e report considere d the propose d five -s to ty sb·u c ture with
one level o f s ubterranean parking a pproxima te ly 10 fe e t be low the existing gr oU11.d level.
a.i) Expo se peo ple or structures to potential sub stantial adve rse effects, including th e ri sk of loss, injun;,
or death in vo lv ing rup ture of a kn ow n earthquake fault, as delin eated on the mos t recent Alqui st-Pri olo
Earth quake Fault Zo ning Map iss ued bt; the State Geo logi st fo r th e area or base d on other sub stantial
evidence of a k1l ow n f ault?
The project site is not located within th e bo undaries of a Earthqu ake Fault Zone as d e fin e d by
the Alquis t-Prio lo Ea rthq u ake Fault Zarling Act of 1972 (California Geological Survey 1999).
City of Temple City
34
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Dec laration
Th e re a re no known ac tiv e or po tentially active fa ults b·aversing the project si te and the ris k of
gr ound ru p ture due to fault dis p lacement be nea th the site is low. The n eares t known active
re gional fa ult i s th e Ray mond Fa ult zon es located appr oxim a te ly 1 .9 miles from the si te.
Impacts w o uld be less than significant.
L ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.ii) Expose peop le or stru ctures to poten tial subs tantia l adverse effec ts, including the 1isk of loss, inj un),
or dea th involv ing strong se ismi c gro u11d shakin g?
N o known active fa ul ts cross the projec t si te. As d escribe d a bove, the n e ares t known active
regional fa ult is the Raymond Fault zones locate d a pproximately 1.9 miles from the si te . A
s trong seismi c event along the Raymond Fa ult zone or an y o ther fa ult sys tem in Southe rn
Cali fo rnia h as the potential to create consid erable le ve ls of ground shaking tlu·o ugho ut the City.
All new struc ture s would be req uired to comply with all applicable provisions of the California
Bu il ding Code (CBC). Due to the potenti al for groundshaking, impacts are p otentially
s ignificant wuess mitigation GE0 -1 is inco rp or a te d.
POTENTIALLY S IGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED
a.ii i) Expose peopl e or structures to po tentia l substantial adve rse effec ts, in cl udin g th e ri sk of loss, inj un),
or death involving seisrnic-relat ed ground fai lu re, in cl udill g liqu efacti on ?
Bas e d on the "Seismic Haza rd Zones, El Monte Qua drangle" by Ca lifo mia De partment of
Conservation, Div ision of Mines and Geology, tl1 e site is not locate d in a m appe d potential
Li quefaction areas (QCI, 2015 ; California De p artment of Conserva ti on, 1999). Th ere w o uld be no
impact rela ted to liquefaction .
NO IMPACT
a.i v) Expose peo pl e or stru ctures to po tential sub stnntial adve rse effect s, i11 cl uding th e 1i sk of loss, inj ury,
or death in volving landslides?
Bas ed on the "Seis mic H azard Zon es, El Monte Quadrangle" by California De pa r tment of
Conservation, Divis ion of Mines and Ge o logy, the project site is n ot loca te d in a mappe d
ea rthquake-induce d landslide area. The site and s urrow1ding area is relative ly flat and d oes n o t
have any s tee p terrain that co uld result in lands lides. Th e re fore, no impact re la ted to landslides
wou ld occur.
NO IMPACT
b) Would the projec t result in subs ta11tial so il eros ion or the loss of top so il ?
The p o tential for soil eros ion is high est during the gra ding and excavation p h ases whe n soils
ar e exp osed . De mo liti on and excava ti on ac ti v iti es wo uld be require d to a dhere to Sec ti on 8-3-2
of the Te mple Ci ty M unicipal Cod e (TCMC) which regula ted p o llutio n sourc e re duc ti on fr om
n ew deve lo pme nt and co nsb·u c ti on . This sec ti on of tl1 e TC MC requires tha t th e City evalua te
projec ts us in g th e guid e lines and Bes t M anagement Prac ti ces (BMPs) li s te d by the Los A nge les
City o f Temple City
35
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the er os ion and grading require ments of the City
manager to d e termine whethe r or no t the proj ec t h as an effec ti ve mitiga tion pl an in place to
minimize nmoff and er osion impac ts fr om project activ ities . Examples of req uire d BMPs
include sediment traps, s tockpile managem en t, and m e tho d s for m ateria l d elivety and s tor age.
Co mpliance with Sec ti on 8-3-2 of the TCMC and the use of BMPs during con struction would
reduce e ros ion and loss of to psoil impacts to a less than s ignificant level.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is un sta ble as a res ult of the projec t, and
poteutially res ult in on- or off-site land slide, latera l sp reading, subs idence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Subsidence is the s udde n sinking or gradua l downwa1·d settling of the earth's s urface witl1 little
or no horizontal m ovem ent. S ubsidence is typically associated with regional changes in ground
s urfa ce e levatio n associa ted with withdrawal of groundwate r, pumping of oil and gas from
underground , the co llapse of undergromtd mines, lique fa c tion, or hydr ocompaction .
La teral spreading is the h o ri zontal m ove ment or spreading of soil toward an open fa ce. When
soils loca te d on a s loping s ite liquefy, tl1ey tend to flo w d ownhill. The po ten tial for fa ilu re from
s ubsidence and lateral spreading is high est in areas w he re the gr ow1dwater ta bl e is high and
where relatively soft, where recent alluvial deposits exis t, and in m·eas wi th liquef ac ti on risks.
The project site is not locate d in an ar ea w h ere the gro undwa te r table is high and there is not a
potential fo r liquefac tion (QCI 2015). The proj ect site is also flat. Ther efore , tl1e potential for
s ubsid e nce, liquefactio n , and lateral spre ading is low. In a ddition, the proposed projec t would
be require d to comply w ith applicable p rovisions for co nstruction related to potential soils
hazru·ds in the m ost recently ado pted ver sion of the CBC and the City's building regul ations.
Impacts would be less than s ig nificant.
LESS THAN S IGNIFICANT IMPACT
d) Wo uld the projec t be loca ted on expa nsive so il , as defined in Tab le 1-B of the Uniform Building Code,
crea tin g subs tantia l ri sks to life or properh;?
Expansive soils ru·e genera ll y clays, which increase in volume w h en satmate d and slu ·ink when
drie d . The onsite neru· s mface soils consis t pred ominantly of silty s and (SM). In gene ral, tilese
soil s ex is t in loose to medium den se and sli ghtly m ois t to m ois t conditio n . Underl y in g tl1 e
s w·face soils, silty s and (SM), silty sand/ cl ayey sand (SM-SC) and sand/ silty sand nu xtmes (SP-
SM), were discovered 51 .5 feet bel ow the ex is ting gr o und s urface. These soils exis t in the
sli ghtly m oist to moist conditions. The soil s beco me d e nse r as d e ptil increases (QCI, 2015). CBC
Section 1808.6 requires special founda ti o n d esi gn for buildings consb·ucted on expansive soil s.
If the so il is n ot re moved or stabilize d, th en foundations mus t be d esigned to pre vent uplift o f
tile supporte d s b·ucture or to resis t forc es exerted on the fotmdation due to soil volume ch an ges
or sh al l be isola ted fr om the ex prutSive soil . Compliance with CBC re quil·em ents would ensm e
protec ti on of s tructures and occupants fr om impacts rela ted to ex pansive soils. H owever, due to
tl1e potential fo r soil exprutSion a t tile projec t site, impacts a re p o tentially s ig nificant tulless
Mitigation Measure GE0-1 is in co rpo ra te d .
POTENTIALLY S I GNI FICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED
City of Temple City
36
Terra ces at Te mple City
Initial Study-M itigated Negative Dec laration
e) Would the projec t ha ve soil s in capable of adequately suppo rting th e use of sep ti c tank s or alternative
wastewater di sposal sys tern s where sewe rs are not availabl e fo r th e disposa l of was tewa ter ?
Th e pro posed projec t would be connec te d to the loc al w as te wate r trea bnent sys tem. Se ptic
systems would no t be u sed.
NO IMPACT
Mitigation Mea sure
Mi tigati on Measm·e GE0-1 would be req uired to p o tential geological impacts from
groundshaking and expan s ive soils to a less than s ignificant lev e l.
GE0-1 Geotechnical Engineering Re por t Re co mme ndations. All recommendations
made in Report of Geo tehni cal Engineering Inves tigation , Proposed 5-Story, Mixed
Use Develop ment, wi th One Level of Subte rran eous Garage, 5935 -5953 Temple Cihj
Bo ul evard, APN: 8587-0 14-029, Temple Cihj, California (QCI, 201 5) shall be
implem ented during grading, excava tion, and cons truction of th e proposed
projec t. This includes, b ut is n o t limited to the rem oval of smficial soils,
tTea bnent of r e moval bo ttoms, structural backfill, foundation d esign,
fo m1 da ti on consb·uc ti on , con crete s labs, reta in ing wall drainage, and
tem por ary excavati o n an d backfill. Th e r econun ended in s p ec ti on by a
geotechnica l enginee r in Sec tion 7.0 o f the r eport sh all a lso be comple ted to
ensur e compliance with the r eport.
Impacts would be less than s ignifican t after implementation of GE0-1 .
VII . GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
--Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indi rectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment ?
b) Conflict with any a ppl ic able plan, policy,
or regulation adopted fo r the pu r pose of
red ucing th e em issi on s of greenh ouse
gases?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Miti gation
Incorporated
0
D
Less than
Significant
Impact
•
•
No
Impact
0
0
C limate change is the observed inc rease in the average te mper atur e of the Earth's a bnosph ere
and oceans along with other s ubs tantial ch anges in c lim a te (such as wind patterns,
prec ipitation, and s to rms) over an ex te nded peri od of tim e. Climate chan ge is th e result o f
numer o us, cumulative sources of greenh o use gases (GHGs). GHGs contribute to the
r City o f Temple City
37
T erra ces at Tem p le C ity
Initia l Study-M itigat ed Negative Dec laratio n
"greenhouse effec t," which is a n a hual occurren ce tha t h elps r egula te the temperatme of the
p lane t. Th e majori ty of radia ti on fr om the Sun hits th e Ea r th's s u rfa ce and w arms it. The surface
in hu n r a dia tes hea t back towMd s th e a trnos ph e re, kn own as infr a re d r a d ia ti on . Ga ses and
clou ds in the atm os pher e tra p and preven t so me o f this h ea t h·om esca pin g back into s pace and
re-rad ia te it in all directio ns. This process is essential to s uppo r tin g life on Earth becau se i t
warms the p lane t by approx ima te ly 60° Fah renhe it. Emissi ons fr om human acti vities since the
beginning of the indus tria l revolution (a pproximately 250 years ago) a re adding to th e na tural
gr ee nho u se effec t by incr easing the gases in the a tm osph e re th a t tra p heat, the re by contribu ting
to an aver age increase in the Earth's temper a ture .
GHGs occur n a turally a n d from h uman ac tiv i ti es . Human ac ti v ities tha t produce GHGs are th e
bu rning of fossil fuels (coat oil and n a tural gas fo r hea tin g and elec tr·ic ity, gasol ine and diesel
fo r tr·ans p o rta ti on ); m ethane h-om landfill was tes and r aising lives tock, d efo r es ta ti on ac ti viti es;
and so me agricul ttu·a l p r acti ces . GH Gs pr od u ced by h uman activities in cl ude ca rbo n diox id e
(C02), m e thane (CI~), nitro us oxi de (N20), h y d roflu o rocarbons (HFCs), p erfl uoroca rbon s
(P FCs), and s ulf ur h exafluoride (SF 6). Since 1 750, it is es tima te d tha t the concentr·ati on s of
carbon diox ide, m e th ane, and ni tro u s oxide in the a tmospher e h ave increased over by 36%,
148%, and 18 % resp ec ti vely, primarily due to human ac ti v ity. Emissions of GHGs a ffec t the
a bnosphere direc tl y by chan ging its chemical compositi o n w hile changes to the land s urface
in directly affect tl1e a tmos phe re by ch an gin g the w ay in w hi ch the Ea rth a bsor bs gases fr om tl1e
a tmosphere . P o ten tial impac ts of glo ba l cl im a te ch ange in Cal ifornia m ay inclu de l oss of snow
p ack, sea level ri se, mor e ex tr·e me hea t days p er year, m ore hi gh ozo ne days, m ore lar ge forest
fi res, and m ore d r o u ght year s (CEC, March 2009).
Th e a d o pte d CEQA Guidel illes provide regulatory guidan ce on the analysis and mi ti gation of
GH G emissions in CEQA d oc umen ts, w hile gi ving lead agen cies the disc re ti on to se t
quantita ti ve or qualita tive thresh o lds for tl1e assessm e nt a nd mitiga ti on of GHGs and clim a te
ch ange impac ts. The 2008 SCAQM D thresh o ld considers e mi ss ions of over 10,000 metric tons of
ca1·bon dioxi d e eq uivalent (C~E) per year to be significant. However, the SCAQMD's thresh old
a pplies only to s ta ti on ary sources and is ex pr ess ly intende d to apply only when th e SCA QMD
is tl1e CEQA lead agen cy. A ltho u gh n ot f or mally a d o pted , the SCAQMD has sc reening level
quantita ti ve tlv esh olds recomme nde d for al l land use types o f 3,000 me tr·ic to n s C02E jyea1·
(SCAQM D, "Propose d T ier 3 Quantitative Tlu·es holds-Opti on 1", Se pte mber 2010).
This analysis is based on the m ethodologies recomme nded by th e Cal ifornia Air P oll u ti on
Con trol Offi ce rs Ass ociation [CAPCOA] (Janu ary 2008) CEQA an d Climate Oumge white paper.
The analysis focuses on C~, N 20, and CI-L as these a re the GHG emi ss ions tl1at OI1S ite
d evelo pment would generate in the lar ges t q uantities. Flu o rin a te d gases, s uch as HFCs, PFCs, and
SF6, were also consid ered fo r th e an al ys is . H owever, th e development p o tential w oul d onl y
inv o lve commercia l and reside ntial develo pment; th ere fore, the q uanti ty of flu orina ted gases
would not be sign ifi can t sin ce fl uorina te d ga ses are primru·.ily associated with ind us tr·ial processes.
Calcul a tions w ere based on the method ologies disc ussed in th e CAPCO A white p a per (J anuruy
2008) ru1d include d the use of the California Clima te Ac ti on Re gistry Ge ne ral Re portin g Pro tocol
(Jan uruy 2009). Emissions analyze d ru·e for th e ne t new uses associa ted with the prop osed p ro jec t.
Emissions associa ted with tl1e proposed p rojec t were es tim a ted us in g the California Emiss iol1S
Es tima tor Model (CalEEMo d ) version 2013.2.2. Complete CalEEMo d res ul ts ru1 d ass u mptions can
be v iewed in A p pendix A.
Ci ty o f Te mple Ci ty
38
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative De claration
a) Would th e projec t ge nera te greenhouse gas emissions, eithe r direc tl y or indirectly, that may lzave a
significant impact on th e env iron men t ?
GHG emissions associated with consbu ction emissions and oper ational emissions fr om the
proposed project are discu ssed below:
Construction Emissions
As s h own in Table 7, emissions of C02E tulits generated by construction of the proposed project
are es timated at 709.6 m e b·i c tons. Air dis b·i cts s ud1 as the SCAQMD (2011) have r ecommend e d
a m o rtizing construction-rel ated emission s over a 30-year p e ri od in conjunc tion w ith the
proposed project's o perational emissions. Whe n am o rti zed over a 30-yea r period (the assumed
life of the project), C0 2E consb·uction e missions wo uld be a pproxima te ly 23.7 m e b·ic tons of
C02E p e r year.
Table 7
Estimated Construction Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Annual Emissions
(Carbon Dioxid e Equivalen t (C02E))
Tota l 709 .6 metric tons
Amortized over 30 years 2 3 .7 metric tons per ye a r
See Appendix A for GalEE Mod Results.
Operational indirect and Stationan 1 Direct Emissions
Operational Emiss ions include a1·ea so urces (consume r products, landscape maintenance
e quipme nt, and painting), e n e rgy use (el ec b·ici ty and natur a l gas), solid was te, e lec b·icity to
d eli ver water, and b·ansporta ti o n e mi ssion s and a re s h own in T able 8. Opera ti onal e nussions
w e re calc u la te d using CalEEMod. Full results ar e shown in A ppendix A. In accordance with AB
939, i t was assumed th a t the proposed project would aclueve at least a 50% waste diversion rate .
CalEEMod d oes not calcula te N20 e mission s re lated to mobile sources. As such, N 20 enussions
were calculated based o n the proposed projec t's VMT us ing calculation methods provided by
th e California Climate Action Regisb-y Ge n e ral Reporting Protocol Uanuruy 2009).
As shown in Table 8, the combined annual GHG emissions associa ted w ith the proposed project
w o uld be 2,013.4 m e b·ic tons. This is less than the proposed SCAQMD tlu·esh o ld of 3,000 m e bic
tons per year. Th e re fore, impacts fr om GI-IG emissions would be less than s ignificant.
r City of Temple City
39
Terraces at Temple City
In itial Study -Mitigated Ne gative Decl arat i on
Table 8
Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
E mission So urce A nn u al E m ission s (C02E!)
Project Construction 23 .7 metric tons
Project Operationa l
Area 1.3 metric tons
Energy 492.8 metric tons
Solid Waste 22 .4 m etric tons
Water 49 .8 metric tons
Project Mobile
C02 and CH4 1,348.5 metric tons
N20 72.1 metric tons
Proj ect Total 2 ,013.4 m etri c t ons
Sources: See Appendix A for calculations and for GHG emission factor
assumptions.
LESS THAN SI GNIFICANT IMPACT
b) Wou ld tlze project co11jlict with any appli cnble pla n, policy, or regu laho 11 adop ted for tlze purpose of
reduci11 g the em iss ions of greenhouse gases?
Sen ate Bill375, s igned in Au gust 2008, requir es the inclusion of sus tainable communities'
s b·a tegies (SCS) in r egional tran s p o rtation plans (RTPs) fo r th e purpose o f reducing GHG
emissions. In A pril 201 2, the So uth Coast Assoc ia ti o n of Government (SCAG) adopted the 2012-
2035 Regio nal Tra nsportation Plan/S ustainable Conuuu11ihes Sh·ategy (RTP /SCS). SCAG' s RTP /SCS
includes a co mmitrnen t to reduce emissions fr om b·<msporta tion som ces by prom oting co mpact
a nd infill developmen t in o rde r to comply wi th SB 375. A goal of the SCS is to "promo te the
d evelopmen t of bette r places to li ve and work thro ugh measures tha t encourage m o re compac t
development, varied housing option s, bike and pedesb·ian improvem ents, and e ffi cient
b·ansportati o n infras b·uctme." The proposed project is a mixed -us e infill project tha t will
provide r es idential and commercial (resta urant and r e tail) uses. The proposed proj ect would
be accessible by pedes b·ian paths as w e ll as include pedesb·ian walkways a dj acent to the project
and n earby r oadways. Ther efore, it would be cons is tent with this goal. Another goal of the
RTP /SCS is to "crea te m or e compact n eighborhoods and place ever y d ay d estinations cl oser to
h o mes and closer to one another ." The proposed projec t wou ld co-loca te re tail u ses with
res id ential u ses , ther e by m ee ting this RTP /SCS goal.
Assem bly Bill32, th e "Cal ifo rnia Global Warming Soluti on s Ac t o f 2006," was s ign ed into law
in the fall of 2006. This bill also requires ac hievemen t of a state wide GHG emission s limit
e quivale nt to 1 990 emissions by 2020 (essentially a 25 % reduc ti on below 2005 emiss ion levels)
City of Templ e City
40
Terr aces at Temple City
Initia l Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
and the adoption of rules and regul a ti ons to achieve the m aximum tedmologically feasible and
cos t-effec tiv e GHG emi ss ions re ductions.
Executive Orde r (EO) S-3 -05 was issued by the Governor in J w1e 2005. EO S-3-05 se ts a GHG
emission re duc ti on ta rge t of 1990 levels by 2020 . Assembl y Bill 32, the "California Global
Warming So luti o n s Act of 2006," was s ign ed into law in th e fall of 2006. This bill also req uires
ac hievement of a s ta tewide GHG emiss ion s limit equivalen t to 1990 e missions by 2020
(ess entially a 25 % reduc tion below 2005 emission levels) a nd the adoption of rules and
r egula ti ons to achieve the m aximum teclm ologically feas ibl e and cost-effec tive GHG e missions
re ductions. In response to EO S-3-05, CalEPA crea ted the Climate Action Tea m (CAT), which in
March 2006, publish ed the Climate Action Tea m Report (CAT Re port) (CalEPA, 2006). The 2006
CAT Re p ort identified a r eco mmended lis t of sb·ategies that th e state co uld pursu e to reduce
GHG emissi on s. The s b·ategies include the r eduction of passenge r and li ght duty b·uck
emission s, reduction of en er gy and wa ter use and incr eased recyc ling. In addi ti on, in 2008 the
California Attorney Gen e ral published T11e California Environ mental Qualihj Ac t Addressing Global
Wamzing Imp acts at the Local Agenetj Level (Offi ce of the California Attorney Gene ral, Global
Warming Measw-es Updated May 21, 2008). The proposed projec t would mee t many objectives
of the CAT r e port and A ttorney General tlu·ough co mpliance with City standards as described
in Tables 9 and 10.
Table 9
Project Consistency with 2006 CAT Report
G h G E .. Rd . S ree n ouse as miSSIOn e uct1on trateg1 es
S trateqy P roject Consistency
California Air Resources Board
Vehicle Climate Change Stan da rd~ Cons istent
AB 143 (Pav1ey} requ ired the state to develop and adopt The vehicles tha t tr avel to and from the project site on public
regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-roadways would be in compliance with ARB veh icle standards
effective reduction of climate change emissions emitted by that are i n effect at the time of vehicle purchase .
passenger vehicles and l ight du ty trucks . Regulations were
adopted by the ARB I September 2004.
Diesel Anti-Idling Consistent
In Ju ly 2004 , the ARB ado pted a measure to limit diesel-fueled Current state law re strict s diesel truck idling to five minutes or
comm ercial motor vehic le idling less . Diesel truck s operating on th e project si te during
construction are subject to this statewide law .
Alternative Fu!lls: BiQQi!lsel Blends Consi stent
ARB would develop re gulations to require the use of 1 to 4 The ARB is in t he process of developing regul ations that would
percent biodiesel displacement of California diesel fuel. increase the use of biodiesel for tra nsportation uses. Currently, it
is unknown whe n such regulations would be implemented;
however, it is expected that upon implementation of such a
regulation tha t would require increase biodiesel blends. the
diesel fueled vehicles that travel to and from the project site
would be repl aced by vehicles using biodiesel.
Al!!lrn§!tive Fu!ll~: E!hanQI Consistent
Increased use of E-85 fuel . As data becomes available on the im pacts of fu el specifications
on the current and future vehicle fleets, t he ARB will review an d
upda te motor vehicle fuel specifications as ap propriate . In
reviewing th e s pe cifi cation s, the ARB will consider the emissions
performance, fue l supp ly consequences , po tential greenhouse
gas reduction benefi ts. and cost issues surrounding E85. Future
tenants of the project could purchase flex-fu el vehicles and
utilize th is fue l , once it is commercially avail able .
Hea>tY·Dut~ Vehicle Emission Reduction Measures Cons i s tent
In creased efficiency in the design of heavy duty vehicles and an The heavy-duty vehicles that travel to and from the project site
education program for the heavy-duty vehicle sector . on public roadways would be subject to all applicable ARB
efficiency standards that are in effect at the time of vehicle
manufacture.
City of Temp l e City
41
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Nega t ive De claration
Table 9
Project Consistency with 2006 CAT Report
reen ouse as miSSIOn e UC IOn ra eg1es G h G E . . R d f St t
S tra teqy Project Consistency
Achieving 50% ~tat!1wide R!1!;;ycling Go§!l C o nsistent
Achieving the Stat e's 50% waste reduction mandate as In October of 201 1, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 341
established by the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, into law, setting a 75% recycling goal for California by Year
(AB 939, Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989), will reduce 2020. Currently, Temple City's solid waste and recycling service
climate change emissions, associated with energy intensive provider is compliant with AB 341 and the project would be
material extraction and production, as well as methane emission served by this provider
from landfills. A per-capita diversion rate of 65% has been
achieved on a statewide basis. consistent w ith AB 939.
Z!1rO Waste -High R!1!;;YQing Consistent
Effort s to exceed the 50% goal would allow for additional AB 341 requires a statewide diversion rate of 75% and thus the
reductions in climate change em issions. City of Temple City and its d isposal partner (Athens Services)
continue to explore new te chnologies and strategies to further
reduce waste and increa se diversion from landfills.
Department of Forestry
Urban Forestry Consistent
A new statewide goal of planting 5 million trees in urban areas The landscaping pr oposed for the project would include planting
by 2020 would be achieved through the expansion of local of multiple trees and would therefore help move toward this
urban forestry programs. statewide goal.
Department of Water Resources
Water Use Efficie ncy Consis tent
Approximately 19 percent of all electricity, 30 percent of all The proposed project would be required to comply with Chapter
natural gas , and 88 million gallons of diesel are used to convey, 13.15 of the City's Municipal Code, which establishes water
treat, distribute and use water and wastewater. Increasing the conservation. use and restrictions . The project proposes to
efficiency of water transport and reducing water use would utilize site design and landscape palettes to conserve a
red uce greenhouse gas emissions. significant amount of water and reduce run-off.
Energy Commission (CEC)
Building Energy Efficiency Standards in Place and in Prog ress Consistent
Publ ic Resources Code 25402 authorizes the CEC to adopt and The project would be required to meet or exceed the standards
periodically update its building energy efficiency standards (that of Title 24 that are in effect at the time of development.
apply to newly constructed build ings and alterations to existing
buildings).
AQQiiance Energy Efficien!;;y Stand ards in Pia~ j!nd in PrQgr!1~l! Consist ent
Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the Energy Under State law, appliances that are purchased for the project-
Commission to adopt and periodically update its appliance both pre-and post-development -would be required to be
energy efficiency standards (tha t apply to devices an d consistent with energy efficiency standards that are in effect at
equipment using energy that are sold or offered for sale in the time of the appliance manufacture date.
California).
Business, Transportation and Housing
Measures to lmQ rQve T ransQortati on Energy Efficiency Consistent
Builds on current efforts to provide a framework for expan ded The project would be in close proximity to existing commercial,
and new initiatives including incentives, tools and inform ation res idential, and recreational development, which would
that advance cleaner transpo rtat ion and reduce climate change encourage the use of alterna tive modes of transportation.
emissions.
Smart Land Use and Intelligent TransQortation Systems (ITS} Not Applicable
Smart land use strategies encourage jobs/housing proximity , The project proposes residentiaVcommercial development along
promote transit-oriented development, and encourage high-transit corridors within the City.
density residentiaVcommercial development along transit
corridors .
Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
Accelerated Renewable Portfolio Standard Consist ent
T he Governor has set a goal of achieving 33 percent renewable The project would evaluate the feasib ility of including solar
in the State 's resource mix by 2020. The joint PUC/Energy panels o n the roofs of the proposed residential dwellings.
Commission September 2005 Energy Action Plan II (EAP II )
adopts the 33 percent goal.
City of Te mple City
42
Ter races at Temple City
Initia l S t udy -Mitigated N e g a t ive D ec lara t i o n
Table 9
Project Consistency with 2006 CAT Report
reen ouse as miSSIOn e UC IOn ra e g tes G h G E . . R d f St t
Strategy P roject Consistency
California Solar Initiative Consiste n t
The solar initiat ive includes installation of 1 million solar roofs or The project would evaluate the feasibility of including solar
an equivalent 3,000 MW by 2017 on homes and businesses , panels on the roofs of the proposed residential dwellings.
increased use of solar thermal systems to offset the increa sing
demand for natural gas, use of advanced metering in solar
appl ications, and creation of a funding source that can provide
rebates over 10 years t hrough a declining incentive schedule.
Table 10
Pr oject Consiste ncy with Applicable Attorney Ge ne ra l
Gree nhouse Gas Reduction Measures
S tra tegy Project Consisten cy
Tra n sportati o n -R e l ated Emiss i ons
Di es el Anti -Idling Consi s t ent
Currently, the California Air Resources Board 's (CARB)
Set specific lim its on idling time for commercial veh icles , includ ing A irborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to Lim it Diesel-
delive ry veh icles. Fueled Commercial Mo t or Ve hicle Idling restricts diesel
truck idlin g to five minutes or less. Diesel powered
co nstruction vehicles are su bject to th is regulation and
thus wou ld comply with the applicable provisions .
Tran sportat ion Emissions Reduction Not Ap plic a ble
Shuttle service to public transportation would be
Provide shuttle service to public tran sport ation . unnecessa ry as the project site is located near a bus
lines incl uding Los Angeles Metro Lines 78179/378 and
267/264
Tra n sp ortatio n Emissions Redu ct i o n Not Applicable
On-site development would not incl ude the addition of
Incorporate bike lanes into the project circulation system . bike lanes , as no private streets are proposed .
Tra n sp ortatio n Emissions Re d uction Not Applica ble
The project includes several bicycle parking areas as
Provide onsite bicycle and pedes trian fa cilities (showe rs , bicycle parking, part of the site plan . Future reside nts would be able to
etc.) for commercial uses , to encourage employees to bic ycle or walk to access these uses .
wor k.
S o lid W aste a nd Ener g y Emissi ons
Sol id Wast e Reduc tio n Strategy C o ns is tent
To the extent feasible, the proposed project will recycle
Project construction shall require reuse and recycl ing of construct ion and on -site co nstru ction waste.
demolition waste .
Wa ter Use Efficien cy Consist ent
The proposed project would be required to comply w ith
Require measures that re duce the amount of water sent to the sewer Chapter 13.15 of th e City's Municipal Code that
system-see examples in CAT standard above . (Redu ction in wa ter establis hes water conservation , use and restrictions .
vo lu me sent to the sewe r system means less water has to be treated an d The project proposes to uti lize site design and
pumped to the end user, th ereby saving energy. landsca pe palettes to conserve a significant amount of
water an d reduce run -off.
r City of Temple City
43
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Dec laration
Table 10
Project Consistency with Applicable Attorney General
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures
Strategy Project Consistency
Land Use Measures, Smart Growth Strategies and Carbon Offsets
Smart Land Use and Intelligent Tran sportation Systems Not Applica ble
The proposed project involves a mixed -use residential
Encourage mixed-use and high density development to reduce vehicle and commercial d evelopment, includ ing retail ,
trips , promote alternatives to vehicle travel and promote e ffi cient delivery restaur an ts , and condominium space within a single
o f services and goods. five-story building.
Smart Land Use and Intelligent Tran s portation Systems N ot Applicable
The pro posed project involves residential and
Requ ire pedestrian-on ly streets and plazas with in the project site and com mercial development on a previ ously developed lot .
destinations that may be reached conveniently by public transportation , The areas within the project si te would be conveniently
walki ng or bicycling . accessed by public transit routes , walking , and /or
bicycling.
T he proposed projec t would n o t confli ct with any a pplicable p lan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the pmpose of r educing th e emis sions of GHGs. Impac ts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Potentially
S ignificant
Potentially Unless L ess than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIA LS
--Would the project:
a) Create a sig n ificant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transp ort, use, or disposal of hazardous
D D • D materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the envi ronm e nt through r easonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the re le ase of hazardous
D • D D materials in to the environment?
c) Em it hazardous emissions or handle
ha za rdous or acutely hazardous
materia ls , substances, or waste wi th in %
D D • D mile of an existing or p ro posed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous material sites compi led
pursuant to Governm ent Code Section
65962 .5 and, as a result , would it create a
significant hazard to t he public or the
D D D • environment?
rr City of Temple City
44
Terra ces at Temp le City
Initia l Stud y -Mitigated Neg ative Dec lara t ion
Potentia lly
Significant
Pote ntially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impac t Incorporated Im pact Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
-Would the project:
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or , w here such a plan has not
been adop ted , wi thi n t wo miles of a public
airpo rt or pub li c u se a irport , wou ld the
project result in a safety hazard fo r people
0 0 0 • residing or worki ng in the proj ect area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the proj ect result in a saf e ty
hazard for people residing or working in
0 0 0 • the project area?
g) Impair im plementati on of or physically
interfere with an adop ted emergency
response pla n or em ergency evacuation
0 0 0 • plan?
h) Ex pose people or stru ctures to a
s ignificant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland f ires , including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where res idences are in termixed w ith
wildlands? 0 0 0 •
a) Would the projec t create a signiftca llt ha zard to th e public or th e environ ment thr ough the routine
h'an sport , use, or di sposal of hazardous ma terial s?
Th e pro p osed p rojec t woul d involv e the cons truc ti on of a mixed-use building with resi d ential,
r etail, and r es ta w-ant uses. Residential and comme rcial uses typically do n o t use or s tore large
quantities of hazar dous m a teri als. P o te ntially h aza rdo u s m a terial s such as fuels, lubricants, and
solvents would be used during construction of the project. Th e b·ans p ort, use, and storage of
h azardous m a teri als d uring the construction of the projec t would be conducted in accordance
with all a pplicab le state and federal laws, s uch as the Hazardous Materials Transpo r tation Ac t,
Res o w-c e Con serva ti on and Recovery Act, the California H azardous Mate rial Management Ac t,
and the California Cod e of Regula tions, Title 22. CompliarlC e with these regula tions would
r e duce impacts rela ted to tl1e r o utine b·a n s p ort, use, o r disposal of hazardous mate ria ls to a less
than significant level.
LESS THAN SI GNIFICANT IMPACT
b) Would the project create a signift call t ha za rd to the public or the env ironme11t thr ough reasonably
foreseeable upse t and accident co nditions in vo lv in g the release of hazardous maten·a ls in to th e
en v i ronme11 t ?
City of Temp le City
45
Terraces at Temple C ity
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Partne r Engineerin g conducted a Phase I En virorunentaJ Site Assessment (ESA), include d in
Appe ndix C, to d e te rmine the presen ce or li k e ly presen ce o f any h aza rdo u s s ubstances or
p e tr o le um produc ts in, on, o r at the projec t s i te : due to re lease to the e nvironment; unde r
conditions indica tive of a re lease to the e n v ironme nt; o r unde r conditions that pose a material
tlu·ea t of a future r e lease to the environment. During the assessm ent, Partner Engineerin g
d e te rmine d that the s ite w as previously occ upie d b y a g as and oi l s ta ti on , as w e ll as a
dryclean e rs. Anothe r dry cleaning operation was a lso ope ra ted a dja cent to the projec t s ite. No
unde rgro w1d storage tc'li1ks (UST) were re p orted or identified at the project s ite. Fw·the r
assessment was re quire d to confirm the presence o r a bsen ce of h azard o us mate ri al s associa te d
with ei the r the gas and o il station o r the dry cleaning o p e r a tions (Pat·tner En gineerin g, 2014).
To furthe r assess the conditions on the project si te, Partne r conducted a Phase II Subs urface
Inve stigati o n , include d in App endix C, to inves ti gate the p o te ntial impact of p e trole um
hyd rocarbons and/or vola til e or ganic carbons (VOCs) to soil gas and/or soil as a con sequ ence
of a re lease o r r e leases from the former gasolin e service station, form e r automotive r epair
facility, and/ o r forme r dry cleaning fa cility. The geoph ysical survey did n o t ide ntify the
presence o f any w1dergrow1d storage tanks or backfille d excava tions. on e o f th e soil samples
containe d con cenb·a tions o f petroleum h ydrocru·bons o r VOCs tha t were above th e labora tory
Practical Quantita ti on Limit (PQL) as we ll as r esi d enti al and industrial Regional Scr eening
Limits (RSLs). Each of the soil gas sample s con tained concenb·ations o f perchl o r oe th y le n e
(PCE), a chlorinated solv e nt, th a t w e r e both above resid e ntia l and indus b·ial soil gas scr eening
le v e ls . A soil gas sa mple also containe d co n ce ntrations of b·ic hloroethy len e (TCE), an industrial
solvent, exceed ing the r eside ntial soil gas screening level, but b e low the indusb·ial soil gas
scr eening level. Non e of the oth er VOCs that were d e tected in concentrations abo ve the lab
PQLs exceed e d residential o r indus b·ial soil gas screening levels. Based o n the Subs mface
Investi gati o n , the r e is evidence o f a r e lease of h azardo us mate rial s from the project site and the
pote ntial exists fo r a vapor intrusion conditio n within th e s ite building. However, these
scr eening levels are gen e ra l and for initia l scr eenin g a11d d o n o t take into account si te-specific
d e ta ils (Partner Engineering, 201 5). Mitigation measure HAZ-1 wo uld be re quire d as part of the
project to re duce these impacts to a less than s ignific ant le ve l.
Additionally, there is a p o ten tial that asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) at·e present a t the
project site. Overall, sus p ect ACMs wer e observed in good condition and do n ot appeal' to pose
a h ealth and safety concern to the occ upants of th e s ubj ect prope r ty at this time. S u spect ACMs
woul d nee d to be sample d to confirm the presence or absence of asbestos prio r to a ny
re novation o r d e molition activities to pre ve nt pote ntial ex posure to wor kers and/ o r building
occ upants . The r emoval of any asbestos-containin g m a te rial s would be required to comply w ith
ail applicable existing rul es and regu la ti o n s, including SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos
Demoliti on a nd Re novatio n Activities). In addition, the proposed project would be required to
comply with Ca lOSHA r egulations regru·ding lead-base d materials. The California Code of
Regula ti o n s, §1532.1, re quires testing, monitoring, containment, and cli sposa1 of lead-based
mate rials, s uch tha t exp osure levels d o not exceed Cal OSHA s tandard s. Nonethe less, impacts
associated with ACMs w o uld be potentially si gnificant unless mitigation measme I-IAZ-2 is
inco rpo r a ted.
POTENTIALLY SIGNI FICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED
City of Temple City
46
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaratio n
c) Would the project emit ha zardous emi ssio11s or lumdl e l111 za rdous or nattely hazardous material s,
substan ces, or wa ste wi thi11 1/4 mile of 1111 exi sti11 g or propose d scho ol ?
The nearest school is Long d en Elementary Sc hool, which is located approximately 0.4 miles
north of the si te. The project in volves th e construction of a five-story building that would
include res ide ntial, retail , and resta urant uses. These uses d o no t typically e mit o r involve the
handling of hazardous mate rials. Therefore, the project wou ld not emit hazardous e mi ssio ns o r
handle hazardous mate rials within one quarter mil e of a school.
LESS THAN IGNIFICANT IMPACT
tf) Would th e project be located on a site which is included on a li st of l111 znrdous material sites co mpiled
pursumzt to Gave mment Code Sec tion 65962.5 n11d, as a res ult, would it create a signifi ca nt hazard to
tlte publi c or tlze en v i romn en t ?
The fo ll owing d a tabases compil ed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 were chec ked
(March 20, 2015) fo r known hazardous m a te rials contamina ti o n a t the p roj ect s ite:
• Compreh ensive Environmental Response, Com pe nsa ti on, and Uabili ty Information
System (CERC U S) database;
• Geo b·acker sea rch for lea kin g under g ro und stor age ta nks (LUSTs); a nd
• The Deparbnent of Toxic Su bstances Conb·ol's Site Mitigation and Brownfields
Database.
T he project site was not listed in any o f the above environmental databases nor a re th e re any
li sted sites within 1,000 fee t. The refo re, no impac t wo uld occ ur w ith respect to known
hazardous mate rial sites.
NO IMPA CT
e) For a projec t located within mz ni rp ort /ant/u se plan or, where such a plmz lta s not bee n ad op ted, wi tltin
two miles of a publi c airport or publi c use airport, wo uld tlze projec t res ult in a snje h; ha zard fo r peop le
res idin g or wo rkin g in th e projec t area ?
j) For a projec t within the v icini h) of a private air strip, would th e projec t res ult in a snfett; ha zard fo r
peopl e res idi11g or wo rking ill tlze projec t area?
T he propose d projec t is over two miles no rthwest of the nearest ai r por t, El Monte Airport.
Additionally, there a re no p ri va te airsb·ips locate d w ithin two miles of the s ite . There fore, the re
would be in impacts related to air por ts o r a irstrips.
NO IMPACT
g) Would the projec t impair implementati on of or phy sica ll y interfe re with mz adop ted emerge net;
res ponse plan or emerge11 cy evnatnti on pln11 ?
City of Te mple City
47
Terraces a t Temple C ity
Initial Study -Mitigate d Neg ative Declaratio n
Th e proposed projec t d oes not involve th e d evelo pment of s bl1 c tures tha t co uld p o te ntiaUy
impa ir imple m enta ti o n of or phys ica ll y interfe re wi th an adopte d em e rgency r es ponse pl an o r
em ergen cy evacua ti o n p lan . The re would be n o impac t.
NO IMPACT
h) Would the projec t expose people or sh1.1ct ures to a sig 11 ijicnn t risk of loss, injun;, or death in volving
wil dland fi res, including where wildla11ds are aclja cen t to urba11i zed areas or where res idences are
inten nixed with wi ldlands?
The City is an u rbanize d commwuty and the re are n o wild lan d s in the projec t site v icinity.
Ther e would be n o ri sk of ex posing p eo ple or sb·uctures to a significant risk of loss , injury o r
d eath invo lving wi ld land fires. T her e would be no impact.
NO IMPACT
Mitigation Measures
The foll owing mitigation measm e would be requ ired to reduce an y pote ntia l impacts associated
with hazardou s and haza rd o us materia ls to a less than significant level.
HAZ-1 H uman Health Ri sk Assessment. P1ior to issuance of b uilding permi t, the
appli cant s hall complete a human h eal th ri sk assessme nt (I-ll-IRA) to evaluate
the pote ntial fo r va p o r inb·us ion o f kn own soil gas contaminates, TCE a nd
P CE, into propose d project a t levels of tmacceptable risk. If an unacceptable
ris k is id e ntifi ed , the a pplicant s h all d evelo p a r e medial action plan to red uce
contaminants to below levels of regu la to ry co ncern. Any r e m ed ia ti o n ac ti vities,
s uch as soil vapor ex b·ac ti o n, s h all be perform e d by qua lifi e d and licensed
professio na ls in the pa r ticular proble m id e ntifi e d and all work shall be
per form ed unde r the s u pervision of the appropriate regula to1y oversig ht
pr ogr am.
HAZ-2 As bestos Survey and A bate ment. Prior to the di s turbance of any suspect
as bes tos-containing m a te ri a ls at the project s ite, a compre h ensive survey,
d esigned to determine if the s uspect m a te ri als are regulated , shall be
comple ted by the a pplicant. If s u ch mate rials are ide ntifi ed a nd need to be
dis turbed , re paired or r em oved , a li cen se d a batement conb·ac tor shall be
cons ulted to p r operly r e move a n y asbes tos in accordan ce with th e
requir em e n ts ofSCAQMD Rule 1403.
Impacts wo uld be less than s ignifica nt after imple mentation o f HAZ-1 and H AZ-2 .
City of Temple City
48
Te rraces at Temple Ci ty
Initial Study -Mitig ate d Nega tive Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Pote ntially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
--Would the pr oject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
0 0 waste discharge r equirements? • 0
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substant iall y wi th
groundwater recha rg e such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering or the local groundwater table
level (e .g., the production rate of pre-
ex isting nearby we ll s would drop to a level
which would not support existing land
uses o r planned uses for which permits
0 0 • 0 have been granted)?
c) Substantially al ter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area , including
through the alteration of the co urse of a
stream or river, in a m anner which would
resu lt in substantial erosion or si ltat ion on-
or off-site? 0 0 • 0
d) Substantially a lter t he existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, includ in g the
alteration of the cou rs e of a stream or
river , or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
wh ich would resul t in flood ing on-or off-
0 0 • 0 site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the ca pacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantia l add itional sources of
0 0 • 0 polluted ru noff?
f) Otherwise substan tiall y degrade water
0 0 • 0 quality?
g) Place housing with in a 1 00-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Bo undary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
0 0 0 • delineation map?
h) Place w ithin a 1 00 -year fl ood hazard area
structures which wou ld impede or re direct
0 0 0 • flood flows?
City of Temple City
49
Te rraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Dec lara t io n
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Sign ifica nt Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALIT Y
--Would the project:
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a
0 0 0 • result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Result in inundatio n by seiche, tsunami,
0 0 0 • or mudflow?
a) Would th e projec t vio late any water qualil:lj stan dards or waste dis charge req uirements?
e) Would til e projec t create or con tri bute runoff wa ter which would exceed the capaci f:lJ of existing or
plann ed stormwa ter dra inage sy stems or prov ide sub stantial additio nal so urces of pollu ted run off?
f) Would the project oth envise sub stan tially degrade water qualihj?
Temporary site preparation, g r a ding, and pavin g activities assoc ia ted with the p roj ec t may
res ult in soil erosion that co uld degrade water quality. However, on-site activities would be
require d to com p ly w ith th e requirements of th e Temple C ity Municipal Code Chapter 8-3-2(D),
National Pollutant Disd1arge Elimination Sys tem (NPDES) and Standard Urban Stonnwater
Mitigation P lan (SUSMP) Regulations. Specifically, proposed d emoliti on and con sb·uction
activities would be re quired to comply w ith Temple City Mwlicipal Code Sec tion 8-3-2(D),
w luch requires tha t the City evalua te proposed projects using the guidelines and BMPs listed by
the Callionua Regional Water Quality Contro l Board, Los Angeles region, and th e erosion and
gr ading requirements of the city manager to ensure that the project has an effective mitigation
plan in place to minimize runoff and erosion impacts from pro ject acti viti es. Exa mples of
required BMPs include sediment b·aps, s to ckpile managem e nt, and mate rial d e li ve ty and
storage. Compliance with these requi re ments would reduce potentia l impacts to wate r quality
d uring construction of the proposed project.
The no rthe rn p o rtion of the project si te c urrently contains a mul ti-tenant comme rci al building
a nd parking lot. Th e sou th ern portion is c urrently vacant and is occ upied by a concr ete slab
foundati on and aspha lt-pave d areas. Th e proj ect may incrementally in crease th e amount of
impervious smface o n th e s ite. The projec t wou ld be required to comply wi tl1 Ordinance 13-979
of the Temple City "Low Impact Developm en t (LID) Man ual ", to expand th e appli cability of th e
existing LID and Gr een S b·eets r equiremen ts by providing s tormwater and rainwa te r LID
s b·a tegies and Green S b·eets Policy for Deve lo pment and Redevelopment projects. Therefore, no
long-term change to hydrology or water quality would occur and the project woul d no t violate
an y water quality s tandards. Compliance with existing r equirements related to water quality
would ens ure th a t impacts would remain less th an significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Temple City
50
Te rraces at Temple Ci ty
Init ial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
b) Would the projec t substn11tially de pl ete gro u11 dwnter supplies or interfe re sub stantially with
groundwa ter recharge such that there wo uld be a net deficit in aq uifer vo lume or a lowerin g or th e loca l
groun dwater tabl e level (e.g ., the produ cti on rat e of pre-existin g nearby we ll s would drop to a leve l whi ch
wo uld not su pport existi11g la11d uses or plamr ed uses fo r whi ch penui ts hm1e bee n g ranted)?
The proposed project invo lves the cons buc ti on of comme rcial and residential development on a
partially vacant lo t and w o uld increm e nta ll y increas e water con s umption . Water would be
provided b y the Swmy S lope Wate r Company, w hich rec ei ves its wate r from gr oundwate r
sources in th e Main San Gabriel Bas in and the Raymond Bas in. H owe ver, as discussed in
Se ction XVI, Utilities mrd Service Systems, th e wate r demand associated w ith the proposed p roject
would not s ubstantially d e plete gro undwater supply. Ther e fore, the proposed d evelopment
wo uld n ot inb·ude into the g r o w1dwater ta bl e.
LESS THAN S I GNIFICANT IMPACT
c) Would the proje ct substa11tially niter the ex isting draina ge pattern of the site or area, in clu din g
th rouglr the alterati on of the co urse of a stream or ri ver, in a mn11ner whi dz would res ult i11 sub sta11tial
eros ion or siltation Oil-or off-site?
d) Woul d the projec t sub stantially alter the exi sting dra inage pattern of the si te or area, in cludin g the
altera tion of tlze course of a stream or r1 ve r, or sub sta ntially increa se th e ra te or am ount of surfa ce mnoff
in a mann er whi ch would result in fl ooding on-or off-site?
The proposed pr ojec t would not involve a lter a ti o n of a strea m o r rive r and would not
s ubstantially alter drainage patterns in th e a rea. During cons b·ucti o n o f the proposed proje ct,
the drainage pattern could be tempo rarily a lter e d and er osion could occ ur. However ,
consb·uction activity w o uld be req uired to co mply with Temple City Municipal Code Section 8-
3-2. This Se ction requi1·es storm water runoff containing sediment, consb·uction materials or
o th er pollutants fro m a construction s ite to be reduce d to the m aximum ex te nt practicable. This
requixement would reduce temporary erosion-rela ted effects .
LESS THAN S IGNIFICANT IMPACT
g) Would the projec t pla ce housing within a 100-year fl ood ha zard area as mapped on a fe deral Fl oo d
Ha zard Boun da n; or Flood fll surn11 ce Rate Map or other fl oo d ha za rd delineation map?
lz) Would th e projec t place within a 100-year flo od ha zard area stru ctures whi ch wo uld im pe de or red irec t
fl oo d fl ows?
i) Would th e projec t ex pose people or s h·uctures to a signiji ca 11t ri sk of loss, inj un;, or death in vo lvin g
flooding , including fl oodin g as a res ult of the failur e of a levee or da m ?
j) Would th e project res ult in inundatio11 by se iche, tsun ami, or llllldjl ow?
The proj ect s ite is n o t located within the FEMA F lood Zones o r the Los An ge les County
Floodplain o r Floodway areas (LACO De parhnent of Public Works , 2015). The proposed p r oj ec t
would not involve cons b·uction of a sb·u c ture that w o uld imped e flood fl o ws . The projec t is not
City of Temple City
51
Terraces at Temple Ci ty
Initial Study-Mitig at ed Negative Declaration
located w ithin a potential immdation a rea. T he project site is approximately 25 miles from th e
Pa c ifi c Ocean and is not located within a seich e, ts unami, o r landslide/ mudslide h azard zone
(CA De partme nt o f Conserva ti o n, 201 3).
NO IMPACT
Potentia lly
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
--Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
0 0 0 community? •
b) Co nfli ct with any applicab le land use p lan ,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (i ncludin g, but
not limited to the genera l plan , specific
plan , local coastal program , o r zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purp ose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
0 0 0 • effect?
c) Conflict with an applicable habitat
conserva tio n plan or natural commu nity
0 0 0 • co nservation plan ?
a) Would tlze projec t plzysica lly di vide an es tabli shed communi~;?
The projec t site is s urrounded by residentia l uses o n tlu·ee sides and is cur re ntly occ u pied by
commercial and re ta il u ses. The a rea, including tl1e p r o pose d proj ect s ite, is urba ni zed w ith
s b·ee t a nd circulation patterns that would no t be a lte red by tl1 e propose d p roject. Th ere w o ul d
be no impact.
NO IMPACT
b) Would tlte project conflict with a11y applicabl e land use plan , poli ClJ, or reg ulati on of an age nClJ with
juri sdi ction ove r the projec t (in cl udin g, but 11 ot limited to the ge neral plan , specific plan , local coastal
program , or zo nin g ordinan ce) adopted fo r th e ptt rpose of avo i di 11g or 111 i fi g a ti ng an elfvironm en tal effec t ?
T he p rojec t s ite is designa ted Comme rc ia l and zo ned Gen e ra l Comme rcial /Te mpl e City
Bo ulevard Comm e rci a l. The project s ite is located in the Temple City Boule vard Commercial
District (TCBCD) as identified in the Downtown Specific P lan (DSP). Mixed-use p rojects are
identified as conditionally pemutted uses in the TCBCD on page III-25 of tl1 e DSP. The projec t
wo uld h a ve a maximum he ight of 64 fee t and would excee d the h eigh t limi t. T h e propose d
project would exceed the h eight Jinut of be 45 fee t o r 3 s tories for or lots ove r 20 ,001 square fee t.
City of Temple City
52
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mit igated Negative Dec larat io n
TI1e City CoW1cil may establi sh a greate r m aximum building he ig ht if the proj ec t sa tisfies the
criteria o f th e Design In ce ntives, establish in Subsecti on 8 o f the DSP. T h e d esign fea tu res that
can be used receive a h eight bonus include :
• A rchitec tural Charac te r a nd Massing -Exceptional design tha t is appr opria te to th e si te
and ne ighbo r h ood, s uch as 36 0 degree a rchitec ture (architec tural and d esign features
incorpo rate d on all sides of the building), balconies and/ or bays on the upper levels
o verl ooking th e s h·eet, ins ets, recesse d enh·y-ways, hi gh qu ali ty windows (su ch as those
w ith b·ue divid e d li g ht window sash es), n a tural building material s o r synthe ti c
m a te ria ls tha t faithfully s imulate th e natural ma teri a ls and have eq ual or better
weatherin g characteristics.
• Res idential Am enities -Well-designe d ftm ctional common spaces and/ or facilities, su ch
as co mmunity rooms, gyms, pools, and o u tdoo r dining/barbe quing areas.
• Pe d es trian Oriented Design Elem en ts-Fea tures tha t are vis ibl e and access ibl e to the
public, incl uding plazas, paseos, a rca d es, colo nnad es, foW1tains and o the r wa ter
features, public art, s tr eet furniture o r other sea ting s u r faces, and hi gh quality
h ardscaping/ paving material s.
• Conservation -Proj ec ts th a t incorpor ate s ustainable b uilding techniq ues and desig n in a
manne r consis tent with certifica tion a t the "Sil ve r" level w1 der the U.S. Green Building
CoW1cil' s Lea dership in Energy and Environn1ental Design (LEED) rating system;
Landscaping th a t utilizes n a tiv e a nd drought-tolerant p lants .
If the City CoW1ci l finds tha t th e projec t inco rpo ra tes one o f more o f these d esi gn fea tures, the
project would be consistent wi th the applicable ge neral plan, specific plan, and zoning ord in ace
r e q uire men ts.
As d esc ri bed in Section I., Aes theti cs, the proposed p rojec t w o ul d cas t shado ws over multifa mily
residences loca te d north of the projec t site for m o re th an 3 hours a nd would a d verse ly impact
adj acent r es ide nces. Implem e ntatio n o f AES-1 would reduce these impacts to a less than
s ignificant level and no furthe r mitiga ti o n is re quired.
Th e pr ojec t is n o t lo ca ted in the coasta l z one and is not s ubj ec t to a Loc a l Coas ta l Program. N o
ch an ges to the Genera l Plan land use or zoning d esig nation s a re pro posed o r required.
POTENTIALLY SI GNI FICANT IMPACT
c) Woul d the projec t conflict ·wi th an appl icab le ha bitat co 11 serva ti on plan or 11ahtral co nnllu llihJ
conservation plall?
The projec t site is wi thin an urban ar ea ch ar acterized by r esidential and comme rcial
d evelo pment. TI1 e propose d projec t wou ld re p lace an existing comme rcia l b uilding on a
d ev eloped s ite. No ha bi tat conserva tion pl an or natura l communities co nse rva ti on p la n would
be affected by projec t im p le menta ti o n . See Section IV fo r furthe r disc ussion. The re woul d be
impact.
NO I MPACT
C i ty of Temple City
53
Terraces at Temple Ci ty
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Dec laration
Mitigation Measures
Im p le m e ntation of Measu r e AES -1 wo uld redu ce impacts r e la ted to land use co mpatibil ity to a
less than s ignifican t level.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
--Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource th at would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a loca l general plan ,
specific plan , or other la nd use p lan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
Potentially
Signific ant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporate d
0
0
L ess than
Significant
Impact
0
0
No
Impa c t
•
•
a) Would the project result i11 the loss of availability of a kiiOWillllinernl resource tlzat wo uld be of va lu e
to tlze reg ion and the resident s of th e stat e?
b) Would tlze projec t result in tlze loss of avai lab ility of a loca lly important 111i11ern l resource rewvery site
delin ea ted 0 11 a local ge neral pla11, specific pla 11 , or other la11d use plmz?
The project site and surrounding properties a re part of an urb anized a r ea with no cu rre nt oil or
gas extraction. Th e s i te has previously been d eveloped and there are no known mine ral
resources on the s i te. Th e re woul d be no impact.
NO I MPACT
Potentially
Significant
Pote ntially Unless Les s than
Signific ant Mitigation Significa nt No
Impact Incorporate d Impact Im p a c t
XII . NOISE
--Would the project resul t 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
0 0 • 0 of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
0 0 • 0 groundborne noise levels?
City of Temple City
54
Terrace s at Temple City
In itial Study-Mitigated Neg ative De c laration
Potentially
Signific ant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impac t Incorporated Impact Impact
XII. NOISE
--Would the project res ult in :
c) A substantial perma nent increase in
ambient noise levels above levels existing
D D • D without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
D • D D without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, whe re such a pla n has not
been adopted, with in two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people resid ing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
D D D • levels ?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the proj ect area to
D D D • excessive no ise?
Overview of Sound Measurement
Noise level (or vol ume) is gen era ll y meas ured in decibels (dB) us in g the A-w e ighted sow1d
pressure level (dBA). The A-weightin g sca le is an adjustment to the actual sound power levels
to be consis te nt with th at o f human h ea ring response, which is mos t sensiti ve to h·e quen cies
a ro und 4,000 H e rtz (a bout the hig hest note o n a p ia no) and less sensitive to low frequenci es
(belo w 100 H e rtz).
So und pressure level is m eas ured on a logarithmic sc al e with the 0 dBA level based o n th e
lowest d etecta ble sound pressure level tha t people can p erceive (an audible sound that is not
zero sound pressure level). Bas e d on the logari thmic scale, a d o ubling of sound ener gy is
equiva le nt to an increase of 3 dBA, and a sound th a t is 10 dBA less than the ambient sow1d level
h as no e ff ec t o n ambien t noise. Because of th e nature of the human ear, a so tmd must be a bo ut
10 dBA grea te r than the r efe rence so und to be judged as twice as lo ud. In general, a 3 dBA
change in commwuty noise l evels is noticea ble, while 1-2 dBA changes gene ra ll y are n o t
perceived . Quiet s uburban a reas typically have noise le ve ls in the ra nge of 40-50 dBA , whi le
arterial streets are in th e 50-60+ dBA range. Normal con versational levels ar e in th e 60-65 dB A
ran ge, and a mbie nt noise levels grea te r th an 65 d BA can interrupt conver sa ti o ns.
Beca use of the logarithnuc scale of the d ec ibel unit, sound le vels cam10t be added or s ubb·ac ted
arithme ti ca lly. If a sound's physical inten si ty is d o ubled , the sow1d level inc reases by 3 dB A,
rega rdless of th e initial so und level. Fo r exa mp le, 60 dB A pl us 60 dBA e qua ls 63 dB A. Where
City of Temple City
55
Terra ces at Temple C ity
Initia l Study -Mitigated Negative Dec laratio n
ambient noise levels ar e high in comparison to a n ew n oise so urce, the change in n o ise level
woul d be less th an 3 dB A. Fo r example, 70 dB A ambient noise levels are combine d with a 60
dBA n oise source th e resulting n o ise leve l equals 70.4 dB A.
Noise that is ex pe rie nced at any receptor can be attenuated by distance o r the p resence of n oise
barriers or inte rvening te rrain. Sound fro m a sin g le so urce (i.e., a p oint source ) radiates
unifo rmly o utward as it travels away fro m th e so urce in a spherica l patte rn . The sound level
atte nuates (o r drops off) at a rate of 6 dBA for ead1 doubling of dis tance. For aco u stically
a bsorpti ve, o r soft, s ites (i.e., sites with an absorptive ground s urface, s u ch as soft dirt, grass, o r
scatter e d bushes and b·ees), ground a ttenuati on of a bo ut 1 .5 dBA p e r doubling of distance
n o rmally occ urs . A large objec t o r banier in the path be tween a no ise source and a receiver can
s ubstantially attenuate n oise levels a t the recei ve r. The amount of a ttenuation provided by th is
shie lding d e p e nds on the s ize of th e o bj ec t, p ro ximity to the n oise source and rece iver , s urface
w e ight, solidity, and the freque n cy content o f the n o is e source. Na tura l terrain fea tures (s uch as
hills and d ense woods) and human-made fe a tures (sud1 as buildings and walls) can
s ubs tanti ally reduce n oise levels. Wall s ar e often con s tructed between a so urce and a r ece iver
s pecifically to reduce n oise. A barr ier that brea ks the line of sight be tween a source and a
receive r will typically result in a t least 5 dBA of n o ise re duction.
Vibration is a unique fo rm of noise beca use its en e rgy is ca rrie d tlu·o ug h buildings, s b·u c tures,
and th e g r o und, w h e reas no ise is si mply ca rried tlu·ough tl1e air. Thus, vibr a ti on is gen erally fe lt
ra the r than h eard. Th e ground m otion ca used by vibratio n is m eas ured as p article velocity in
in ch es p er second and is referen ced as v ibra ti o n d ecibels (Vd B) in tl1 e U.S. The City h as n o t
a dopte d any thresho lds or regula tions addressing cons tru ction vibration .
The vibration velocity level tlu-es h old of per ceptio n for humans is appr oximately 65 VdB. A
vi bra tio n velocity of 75 VdB is the a pproxima te div iding line be tween barely perce ptible and
di s tinc tl y p e rce ptible levels fo r many p eople. Th e vibration tlu·es ho ld s es tablis hed by the
Fed eral T ransit Adminisb·a tion (FT A) a re 65 VdB for buildings where low ambient vibration is
essential for interio r o p e ra ti ons (sud1 as hospitals and recording s tu d ios), 72 VdB fo r reside nces
and buildin gs wher e p eo pl e no rmall y s leep , including h o tels, and 75 VdB fo r ins titution al land
u ses with primary daytime use (s uch as churches and sch ools). The tlu·esho ld for tl1 e p r oposed
p r ojec t is 72 VdB fo r res ide nces during h o urs w h en people no rma ll y sleep, and 75 VdB for
ins tiht tiona lland uses, s uch as Pacific Fri ends Sc hool (0.3 miles fr o m tl1 e s ite. In terms o f
ground-bo rne vibra tio n impacts o n s b·u ctures, th eFT A states th a t gr o und-borne vibra ti on
levels in excess of 100 VdB wo ul d d amage fragil e buildings and levels in excess of 95 VdB
would damage ex b·eme ly fragil e historic buil dings.
R egulatory Setting
Californi a Governmen t Code Section 63502{g)
111e S tate of California De pa r bnent of H ealth Services, Env iro nm enta l H ea lth Division, has
publis h ed Guideli nes for Noise and l.Jmd Use Co mpatibilihJ (the State Guidelines). Th e Sta te
Guide lin es, indica te tl1 a t resid ential land uses and o ther no ise-sens itive recepto rs gen erall y
sho uld loca te in areas where o utdoor ambient n o ise levels do n o t exceed 65 to 70 d B( A) (CNEL
o r Ldn). The Sta te Department of Hous in g and Co mmuni ty De ve lopment does require,
h owever, tha t new multi-famil y wuts n o t be exposed to outdoor ambient no ise levels in excess
City of Temple City
56
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
of 65 dB( A) (CNEL o r Ldn), and that, if n ecessary, sufficient n oise ins u la ti o n be provided to
redu ce inte rio r ambient le ve ls to 45 dB( A) Ldn/CNEL.
City of Temple City Noise S tandards
Th e City o f Temple City adopted its General Plan and Noise Elem ent in A pril1987. The oise
E lement examines n oise sources and prov id es information which may be u sed in setting land
u se policies to en co urage noise-compatible uses and to aid in enforce ment of a loca l n o ise
o rdinance. The Noise Elem ent id en tifi es th e m ajor ex is tin g and p roj ec t future noise genera tors
in the City, which include b·affic on primary and secondary roadways. The Noise Element
includes several poli cies on n oise and acce pta bl e n o ise levels and es tablishes land use
compatibility ca tegories for commw"lity noise ex p os ure. The m aximum acceptable n o ise level
fo r th e exterio r of res idential a reas is 65 dB A CNEL o r Ldn.l The maxim tun acceptable inte rior
n oise level for commer cia l re tai l, bank, and resta urant uses is 55 dB A CNEL. Th e m aximmn
inte rior noise level fo r o ff ice and pro fession a l buildings uses is 5 0 dBA CNEL.
T he City's MlUlicipa l Code includes So und Level Standa rds within Chapter 9 A rti cle 1,
Regul a ti on o f Excessive Noise. The Articl e r equires that no p erson create an y so und on any
property that ca u ses the exterio r sound le v e l on any o ther occ u p ied property to exceed the
so und level standards shown in Tabl e 11 below.
Table 11
Temple City General Sound Level Standards
Zone 7 :00A.M. to 10:00 P.M. 10:00 P.M . to 7:00A.M.
Residential 55dBA 45dBA
Commercial 65dBA 55dBA
Industrial 75dBA 75dBA
Th e Noise A rticle s pecifies that priva te co ns b·uction p rojects located 0.25 miles or m o re fr o m an
inha bi te d dwelling or w i thin 0.25 mil es of an inha bited dwell ing, provid e d tha t co n sb·uction
does not occ ur be tw een the hours o f 7:00P.M. and 7:00A.M., are exemp t fro m the provisions o f
th e Noise Articl e. The City of Temple City cod e e nforce me nt personnel a nd the Los An geles
County s heriff have the r esponsibility fo r enfo rcin g these r egula tions and the public health
d e p arbne nt may assis t (Sec tion 9-11-6).
Existing Settin g
Th e m ost common som ces of noise in the pro jec t s ite vi cinity a re b·anspor ta ti o n-re la te d , such as
a utomobiles, trucks, buses a nd motorcycles . Motor vehicle noise is of concern because it is
char acteri ze d by a high numbe r o f individual events, w hich often create a su s tained n o ise level,
and beca use of its proximity to ru·eas sen s itive to noise exposure. On March 2, 2015, Rincon
Consultants, Inc. perfo rme d two 15-minu te weekday noise m easureme nts us ing ru1 A SI Type
II integrating som1 d level m e te r . The n oise m onito ring r esu lts ru·e s ummarize d in Table 12.
1 The Day-N iglu average level (Ldn) and t he Co mmunity No ise Equivalent Level (CNEL) are two common(v used
noise metrics. The Ldn is a 2./-h our average noise level th at adds 10 d/3rl to ac /1/alnighllime (10:00 P.\lto 7:00
A AI) noise le vels t o account for th e greater sensitivity t o noise during that tim e period. Th e CNEL is identical to the
Ldn. except it also adds a 5 d /3.-l penalty for noise occurring during the e1·ening (7:00 P.llto 10:00 P.\1).
City of Temple City
57
Terraces at Temple Ci ty
Init ial Study-Mitigated Negative Decla ration
Tabl e 12
Noise Measurement Results
Meas u re ment Measurement Locat ion Prima ry Noise Leq (d BA)1
Number So urce
1 50' from Temple C ity Traffic 66 .1 Bou levard
2 A lley Way on the South Tra ffic and Retail 56 .2 Side of the Parcel Activit y
Source. Rincon Consultants. Inc Recorded during field visit using ANSI Type 1/lntegratmg
sound level meter. See Appendix D for noise measurement results .
' The equivalent noise level (L eq) is defined as the single steady A -weighted level that is
equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a
period of time (essentially, the average noise level). For this measurement the Leq was over a
15-minute period.
Noise levels in the vicini ty of th e project site r anged from a bout 56 to 66 dBA Le q . The primary
sources of r oad way n o ise near th e projec t site a re auto m obiles b·aveling on T e mple City
Bou levard . Bas ed o n th e no ise meas urem ent res u lts , exis tin g ex ter io r ambient noise conditio ns
a re in exceedance of Temple City noise s tandards .
Sensitive Receptors
Noise ex p os ure goa ls fo r various types o f land u ses refl ec t the varying n oise se nsitivities
associated w ith those uses. Noise sensitive land uses typically include resid ences , h ospitals,
sch ools, gues t lod g ing, libraries, and parks. Noise sen sitive land u ses in th e area are
pre dominantly s ingle-famil y r esidences. The proposed project co n s is ts of mu ltifa mily
res id e ntial dwellin g units whid1 would be considered sen sitive rec eptors o nce con s rructe d.
Traffic no ise on Woo druff Ave nue and Temple City Bo ulevard is tl1 e main noise sour ce as i t
a buts tl1e project s ite to tl1 e n o rth and east. Th e neares t sen sitive rece ptors tl1.at wo uld be
affec ted by n o ise gen er ate d by consrruction and ope ra ti o n o f tl1e pro p osed projec t include
exis tin g reside nces immediately adjacent 25 fee t to tl1 e w est o f tl1 e proj ec t si te.
a) Would the proje ct res ult in ex pos ure of perso ns to or ge nera hon of noise leve ls in excess of sta ndards
es ta blished in the loca l gen eral plan or 110ise ordinan ce, or app li cab le s tandards of otlz er age ncies?
c) Wo uld the projec t res ult in a subs tmzhal pe r111 anen t increase in ambie11t noise leve ls above leve ls
exi stin g without th e projec t?
Operational Noise
Existin g us es near tl1 e project site may peri odically be s ubj ec t to noises associated witl1
o pe rati o n of tl1 e proposed proj ec t, including n o ise tl1at is typical of commercial and residentia l
d evelopment s uch as conver sa ti o ns, mus ic, d eli ve ry b·ucks, and n o ise associated with roofto p
ventilation and h ea ting systems. The closest sen sitive rece ptors are tl1.e residen ces loca ted
a pproximately 25 feet w est of the p rojec t s ite .
The proposed projec t invo lves restaurant, re ta il , and residen tial u ses. The ma in enb·ances to
tl1 ese uses wou ld be loca te d on Te mple City Boulevard. Res iden ts may also access th e building
tl1.rough th e s ubterran ean ga rage. Th ere wou ld a lso be an o utdoo r ce nb·al ga rden a rea on tl1e
second fl oor.
Ci ty of Temple City
58
Terraces at Temple City
Initia l Study -Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rooftop ventilation and h eating syste m s would be o n site n o ise gen e rator s . N oise levels &o m
comme rcial h eating, v entilation and a ir conditioning (HV A C) e quipment ca n rea ch 100 dBA a t a
distance o f tlu-ee feet (EPA , 1971). This equipme nt usually has n oise shie lding cabine ts placed
o n the roof o r is within m echanical e quipment rooms. Typically, the s hie lding and locati o n o f
these units r e duces n o ise levels to no gr e a te r than 55 dBA at 50 fee t fro m the source. Th e roofto p
HV AC sy stems would be 65 feet ver tically o ver a dj acent res id en ces, and a t le ast 25 fee t away.
Asswning a 6 dBA decrease p e r d o ubling o f dis tance, n o ise fr om I-IV AC sys te ms at the n ea rest
sensiti ve rece ptors would be 54 dB A. Noise a t this le ve l w o uld be lower than ambient n o is e in
th e are a and would be ba re ly percep tibl e at the n earby residen ces. The r efore, o pe r ational n oise
impacts fro m HV AC e quipment would be less than s ignificant.
Ope ratio n of the p roposed comme r cia l u ses of the projec t co uld invo lve d e li very h·u cks and
h·ash h a uling trucks going to and &o m the project site . An individual d e li very h·u ck can
gen e rate n o ise of up to 85 dBA, w hid 1 cou ld be dis ruptive if it were to occ w-a t night o r in the
early m oming h ours . Howe v e r, n oise gen e r a te d by d ay time d e live ries a nd trash pickup s w o uld
not a dve rsely affec t nearby sen s itive r eceptors due to the ir r elatively low frequency and the
l ower n o ise level sensitivi ty of receptors during the d ay w he n d e live ri es would occ ur.
Onsite parking would be e nclosed in a parking garage with the e nh·ance to s ubte rranean
parking located alon g the public alleyway o n the wes t side of th e s ite and the e ntrance to
g round le v e l parking for m ostly comme rcial u ses located on Woo druff Ave nue . Therefor e,
noise associa te d w ith vehic ular m ovem e nt in p a rking a reas would n ot be a udible to n earby
se nsitive r ecepto r s.
T h e proposed project w o uld increase the numbe r of vehicle h·ips to and from tl1e si te, which
would incr e m e ntally increase h·affi c noise o n s tudy area roadways . The proje ct could therefore
inc re m ental ly increase n oise a t n e ighbo ring u ses. As shown on Table 12, exis ting m e asure d
ambient noise levels a long roadway segm e n ts in the project v icini ty during non-peak h o urs
r a n ge &o m 56.2 dBA to 66.1 dBA. o ise le v e ls on Woodruff Avenue and Temple City
Bou levard during tl1 e p eak p e ri od were e s tima ted u s ing tl1e Federa l Highway Adminish·ation
Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Ve r si on 2 .5 (U.S. De partment of Transpo rtation, Fede ral Highway
Administra ti on [FHWA], A pril2004) (n o ise m odeling d ata sh eets are provide d in Appendix D).
T h e mode l calcula ti ons are based on th e buildout h·affi c volumes during peak h o ur fo r ecast in
the Traffi c and Circul a ti o n S tudy p e r fo rme d by Associate d Trans p o rta ti o n Engineers o n June 4,
201 5. Table 13 sh ows the change in n o ise lev el due to project-re l a te d h·affic in exis ting and
future co nditions.
City of Temple City
59
Terraces at Temple C ity
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 13
1pera rona 0 f I R d N oa way orse E xposure
Projected Peak Hour Noise L ev e l Change In Noise L eve l
(dBA Leq) (dBA Leq)
Roadway Ex isting Ope ning Cumulative C han ge Unde r Opening Pro j ect's
Existing +Project Ye ar Future+ Existing Year Cumulative
(1) (2) (3) Project Cond itions Change Contribution
(4) (2 minus 1) (3 -1) (4 minus 3)
Woodruff Ave South 67 .9 67 .9 68.1 68.1 0.0 0.2 0 .0
Woodruff Ave North 68 .0 68 .0 68.2 68.2 0.0 0 .2 0 .0
Refer to Appendix D for full noise m odel output
Sour ce: Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5, Traffic counts from Associated Traffic Engineers Traffic
Impact Study
Notes: Noise l evels presented do not account for attenuation provided by existing barriers or future bamers; therefore, actual noise
levels at sens1tive receptor locations influenced by study area roadways may 1n many cases be lower than presented herein
Assumes distance of SO fee l f rom ron tlwny cenla line to sen sitive recep tor.
As sh o wn in Table 13, the tri ps gene rated by the propose d projec t wo uld not ca u se any increase
in exis ting con ditio ns and an inCJ·ease of 0.2 dB A in th e opening yea r. The projects contributio n
to c umula ti ve roadway noise is es tima ted to be 0.0 dB A. As s uch, the additi o nal b·affi c tha t
would be gen er a te d by the projec t wouldn't measu rably increase noi se com pared to e ither
c tu-r ent o r c umulative fu ture conditions. The lac k of increase in roadway noi se is due to th e
pr o pos ed projec t not gene ra ting additio nal n ew bi.ps to W oodruff Avenue. As disc ussed a bove,
a 3 dBA change in community n o ise levels is ge nerall y n o tic ea bl e, whil e 1-2 dBA changes
generally are not p e rceive d . This increm e nta l increase o f 0.2 d BA in n oise in opening year
wou ld not be p erce ptible to nearby sen sitiv e r ece ptors. The refor e, operational n o ise impacts
fr o m projec t gen er a te d b·aific wo ul d be less than significant.
Whil e the TCMC d oes no t list inte ri o r n oi se level s tandards, s tandard n ew r es ide ntial
cons b·uction typically provides a reduc tion of ex te ri o r-to-interior n o ise levels o f 25 dBA o r more
(Fe d e ra l Tra ns it Adminis b·ation, May 20 06). As di sc uss ed a bove, the State De pa1·bne nt of
Housing and Community Development d oes require, howeve r, tha t n ew m ulti-fami ly units n o t
be ex posed to o utdoor ambient n oise levels in excess o f 65 dB( A) (C NEL o r Ldn ), and tha t, if
n ecess ary, s ufficient noise ins ulation be provide d to re duce interi o r ambi e nt le ve ls to 45 dB(A)
Ld11 jCNEL. S in ce the r esidential uses of the proposed p roj ec t would begin o n th e second floo r,
w h e re n o ise a ttenuation woul d lead to som e reduc ti on in ex te rio r n oise, in addition to be ing
built acco rding w i th stand a.r·d m odern ex teri o r-to-inte rior noise re ducing techniques, the
prop ose res idences wou ld n ot be s ubj ec t to s ig nificant ex ter ior-to -interior n o ise levels.
The refore, impacts to new residen ces wo ul d be less than signifi cant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b) Wou ld the project res ul t i11 expos ure of perso us to or ge nem tio11 of excess ive grou 11dbom e vibmti o11 or
groundbome noise leve ls?
Oper a ti o n o f the proposed projec t would no t pe rce ptibly in crease g ro tu1dbo rne vibra tio n o r
gro undborne noise o n the pro ject s ite a bove existing conditions, due to the proposed
City of Temple City
60
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Stu d y -Mitigate d Negative Dec laration
commercial and residential nature o f the proposed projec t. Con s b·uction o f the proposed projec t
co uld potentially increase gr o undbo m e vibration o n th e proje ct site, but cons b·uc ti on effects
would be te mporary. Ba sed on the information presen te d in Table 14, v i bra ti o n levels co uld
reach approxima te ly 86 VdB a t the residences n ea r to the site, which ar e a pproxima te ly 25 feet
wes t of the projec t site .
Table 14
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equi pment
A p proxima te VdB
Eq u ipment
25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet
Loaded Trucks 86 80 78 76 74
Jackhammer 79 73 7 1 69 67
Small Bulldoze r 58 52 50 48 46
Source: Federal Railroad Administration , 1998
As discussed above, 1 00 VdB is th e gene ral tlu·eshold wh e re mino r dama ge can occur in fragile
buildings. Beca use vibr ation levels would n o t reach 100 VdB, sb·u c tura l damage w o uld not
occ ur as a result o f cons b·uction acti viti es. This vibra ti o n levels a t the r esidential uni ts 25 feet
west of the pr ojec t site woul d exceed the g ro u ndbom e ve locity tlu·es ho ld level of 72 VdB
established by tl1 e Fe d er a l T ransit Ad mini s tratio n for resid ences and buildings w h ere peopl e
normally sleep . However, as disc u sse d above, the TCMC prohibi ts constructi on ac tivities
be tween the h o m s of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM . 1l1e refo re, cons b·uction would n o t occur dw·ing
recognized s leep h o urs fo r resi d en ces and vibratio n effec ts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SI GNIFICANT IMPACT
d) Would the projec t res ult i/1 a subs tmz tial te111 pomry or periodic in crease in ambie11 t no ise leve ls in tile
project v icinity above leve ls ex istin g with out the proje ct?
Con struction Noise
Noise levels fr o m cons b·uction of th e pro p osed projec t wo uld r es ult fr om con s tru ction of th e
s b·u c ture and b·affic noi se fro m cons truction vehicl es. eru·by no ise-sensitive land u ses,
including the r esid ences immedia tely wes t o f tl1e projec t s ite, w o uld be exposed to temporary
cons b·u cti on noise during deve lo pment of tl1e p rop ose d project. Noise impac ts are a functi on of
the type of ac ti v ity being un der taken and tl1e distance to tl1 e recep to r locati o n . Construction
ac ti v ity is ex pec te d to occ ur over a period of approximately 24 montl1S. Table 15 sh ows the
typica l n o ise levels a t con s tru c ti o n s i tes.
C ity of Temple Ci ty
61
Terraces at Te mple Ci ty
Initial Study-Mitigated Neg ative Declaration
Table 15
T IN yprca oise Levels at Construction Sites
Typical Level Ty p ical L evel (dBA)
Equipment On s ite (d BA) 25 Feet 50 Fee t from the
from the Source Source
A ir Compresso r 87 81
Backhoe 86 80
Concre te Mixe r 91 85
Crane, mobile 89 83
Dozer 91 85
Jack Hammer 94 88
Pa ver 95 89
Saw 82 76
Truck 9 4 88
Noise levels assume a noise attenuatio n rate of 6d BA pe r doubling of distanc e .
Source: Feder al T r ansit Ad ministration (FTA), May 2006
Typica l Leve l (dBA)
100 Feet from the
Source
75
74
79
77
79
82
83
70
82
As sho wn in T a ble 15, typical constructi on n oise levels a t 25 feet fro m the source range fr o m
ab o ut 86 to 95 dBA. Th ese levels excee d ambie nt n oise in the are a a nd w ould be audible to
n ea rby r esidents. H o w ever, as cti sc ussed above, th e TCMC prohibi ts cons truc ti o n activities
be tween the h o urs of 7:00PM and 7:00 AM. A d cti ti o n a ll y, s tanda rd co nctiti o ns of approval th a t
would be a pplie d to the projec t incl ude a co nditio n which w o uld limit the co n s b:ucti o n
ac tiviti es to Mo nday to Sa turday f ro m 7:00 A.M . to 6:00P.M a nd no t all ow con s b·u ctio n
Sundays o r n a tio n a l h olidays. Ther e for e, cons b·u c ti o n would n o t occ u r during recogni ze d sleep
h ours for residences. N evertheless, be cause projec t cons b·u ction w ould be a s ubs tantial source
of n o ise and w ould occ ur in cl ose p r oximity to a dj acent residen ces to th e wes t, impacts a re
potentially signifi cant and mitiga ti o n m eas ure -1 is require d fo r cons tructi on ac ti vities
associa ted w i th the proposed projec t.
POTENTIALLY S I GNIFICANT UNLES S MITIGATION INCORPORATED
e) For a projec t located withi 11 an airport land use plan or, where such a pla n/U1s not bee n adopted, within
huo miles of a public airport or public use airport , would the project expose people residing or working in
th e project area to excess ive noi se levels?
Th e p roposed projec t is over two miles no rthwest of the nea res t airpo rt, El Monte Air port.
Th e re would be n o impac t fro m air port n oise.
NO IMPA CT
City of Temple City
62
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigat ed Negative Declaratio n
!J For a project withi11 tlte vicinity of a private airstrip, wou ld the project expose people residi11g or
wo rkiH g iH th e project area to excess ive /l Oise?
The proposed pr oject is not located in th e v icinity of a private a irstrip and would not ex pose
people residing or working in the project a rea to excess ive no ise. There would be n o impac t.
NO I MPACT
Mitigation Measures
N-1 Noise Reduction Measures . Temporary co nstruction impacts wou ld be reduced
tlu·ou g h imple mentation of the fo ll owing noise reduction measu res:
• Noise and groundborne vibration construc ti on activities whose specific
location on the Project Site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors
and ge ner ators, ce ment mi xin g, general b:uck idling) shall be conduc ted as
far as possible from the nea rest noise-and vibration-sensitive land uses.
• Wh en possible, constructi on activities shal l be scheduled so as to avoid
oper ating seve ral pieces of equi pment simultaneously, which ca uses high
noise levels.
• Flexi bl e sound conb·o l curtains shall be placed arOLmd all drilling
appara tu ses, drill rigs, and jack hamme rs when in use.
• Th e project conb·ac tor s ha ll use th e newest available power consh·uctio n
equipment with standa rd recommended noise shielding and muffling
d e vices.
• The local power g rid sh ou ld be used for a ll fea sible eq uipme nt to limit
gen er ator n oise. No generators larger than 25 KV A should be used and, in
cases where a ge ne rator is necessary, it should have a maximum noise
muffling capacity and be operated at the lowest power setting requir ed to
minimize the res ulting noise. All variable message/sig n boards shall be solar
powered or connected to th e local power grid.
• Tempor ary nois e barri e rs s h ould be made of noise-resistant materi al
s ufficient to achieve a So und T ransmission Class (STC) rating of STC 30 o r
greater, based o n so und b·ansmission loss data taken accordin g to ASTM Test
M e thod E90. S uch a ba rrie r may p r o vide as much as a 10 dB inse rtion loss,
provide d it is posi ti o ned as close as possible to the noise source o r to the
r ecepto rs . To be effec tive, th e banier must be long and ta ll e nough (we
recomm e nd a s tandard minimum h eig ht of 8 feet) to completely block the
l ine-of-sight between the noi se source and the receptors. The gaps between
adjacent panels must be fi ll ed-in to avoid having noise pene trate direc tl y
tlu·ou gh the barrier.
• A ll construction truck b·affic s ha ll be res b·icte d to truck routes approved by
the City, which sha ll avoid residential areas and otl1e r sens iti ve rece ptors to
tl1e extent feasible.
• Two weeks prior to th e comme ncement of consb·uction al the Proj ec t S ite,
notification shall be provid e d to the immediate smrounding o ff -s ite
r eside ntial, school, and me mo ri al park properties tl1at discloses the
con s b·uction sc he du le, inclu d ing the various types of activities and
City of Temple City
63
Terraces at T emple City
In itia l Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
e quipme nt that would be o ccurring througho ut the dura ti o n of th e
con sb·u c tion p e ri od.
• Equipme nt warm-up a reas, wate r tanks, a nd e q uipme nt storage a r eas s h a ll
be locate d a minimum of 45 feet fr o m abutting sen si ti ve r ecep to rs.
P r oject cons b·u c tion woul d re presen t a te mpo rary source of n oi se a t the project s ite. Mitigation
M e asures -1(a) thxough N -1(i) r equir e imple m entatio n of n oise re duc ti o n d e vices and
techniqu es dming con s truc ti o n , and wo uld r e duce the noise le ve ls associate d with constru c ti o n
of the proposed projec t to th e max imum ex tent feasibl e. Thu s, the pro posed projec t would be in
compliance with the TCMC with respe c t to con struc ti o n and w o uld not viola te the n o ise
s tandaxds establishe d in the TCMC. Implem e ntation of the m ax imum feasible consb.11ction
noise r e duc tion m eas ures would r e duce this impact to a less-than-significant le vel.
Potentially
S ig nif i ca n t
Potentially Un less Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact I ncorporated Impact Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HO US I NG
--Would the project:
a) Induce substa nti al population growth in an
area , e ither directly (for example , by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for exa mple , through extension
0 0 • 0 of roads or other infra st ru cture)?
b) Displace substantia l numbers of existing
housing , necessitati ng the con stru ctio n of
0 0 0 • replacement housing e lsewhere ?
c) Dis pl ace substantial numbers of people ,
necessitating the co nstru ct ion of
0 0 0 • replacement housi ng elsewhere?
a) Would tlz e projec t indu ce substa11tial popu lation growth in an area, ei tlzer direc tl y (fo r exa mpl e, by
proposing new homes an d businesses) or indi rec tly (for exa mple, throug h ex tens ion of road s or other
infra stnt chtre)?
Th e project con s ists o f the consb.·uc ti on of 75 reside ntial c ond ominiums consisting of 20 o n e-
bedr oom units, 47 two-beruoom units and 8 tlu·ee-be droom units. T h e California Depa rtme nt of
Finance (DOF) s tates tl1 a t tl1e population of Temple City in 2014 was 36,275 . The Southe m
Ca lifo rnia Association of Governn1 e n ts (SCAG) estimate s tl1at the City's p o pula ti o n wi ll
increase to 39,000 by 2035, an increase of 2,725.
The DOF estima tes that the re are appr oximate ly 3.09 pe rs o ns p e r h o u seh o ld in T e mple City
(De partment of Finan ce, 2015). Based o n this aver age, tl1 e 75-unit project wo uld accommodate
appr ox ima te ly 232 people. This wou ld incr ease the popula ti o n of T e mple C i ty to 36,507. The
p o pulation inc rease associate d with the p rop osed projec t is w ithin tl1 e p o pulation forecast for
the City. Th e level of p o pula ti o n incr e a se a ssocia te d w itl1 tl1e p ro p osed project is within the
City of Temple City
64
Terraces at Temple City
Initia l Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
population forecast and the physical e n v i1·orunental impacts associated with this in creased
population growth h ave been add ressed in the individual resources sec tions of this Initial
S tudy.
LESS THAN SI GNIFICANT IMPACT
17) Would the projec t displace sub stantialnw 11 bers of exi sting hous in g, necess itatin g tile co nstmctio11 of
replacement hou sing elsewhere?
c) Wo ul d the projec t displa ce s11 bs tantialmu11 bers of people, necess itating the constru ction of replacement
IIou si ng elsewhe re?
There a re no h o us ing uni ts on the projec t s ite or people residing on the projec t s ite in any form
of tempora 1y h ousin g. There fore, the project woul d not displace any ex isting h o using units or
people.
NO I MPACT
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless L ess than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Im pact Impact
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substan tia l
adverse ph ysica l impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental faci lities , or the need for
new or physically altered government a l
facilities, the construction of which cou ld
cause significant environmental impacts ,
in ord e r to maintai n acceptable service
ratios , response t im es o r other
performance objecti ves for any of the
public services:
i) Fire protection? D D • D
ii) Police p rotection? D D • D
iii) Schools? D D • D
iv) Parks? D D • D
v) Other public facil ities? D D • D
a (i) Wo uld tl1e project res ult 111 s11 bs tantial adve rse physical impac ts associa ted wit/z th e provisio11 of new
or pltysicn ll y altered gove mmental facil ities, or th e need fo r new or physically altered goverw11ental
City of Temple City
65
Te rraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative De c laration
d e puties and 47 civ ilian employees. Ther e ar e curre ntl y 49 patrol vehicles, 3 mo torcycles, and 23
o tl1 e r law enforcement vehicles ass igned to ilie Station. The Sta ti on is a lso s uppor ted by o tl1er
De partment assets, including h eli copte rs, fi xed -win g airc raft, e mer gen cy oper ations equipme nt,
sear ch and resc ue equipment, and mounted p a trol. Base d o n ilie es timated res ident populati on
of tl1e Station's ser v ic e area, tl1e Station's curre nt service ratio is one d e puty p er 986 resid ents.
Ba sed on ilie generally accepted service ratio of one officer p er tl1 ousand urban residents, tl1 e
Station is sufficientl y staffed. On average, tl1 e Station 's res p on se times tl1ro ughout ili e service
m·ea a re as fo ll ows: 3.8 to 6.8 minutes fo r emergent ca ll s fo r service; 8 to 10.1 minutes fo r prio r ity
ca ll s for service, a11d; 40.4 to 67.3 for routine ca ll s for serv ice. Response times are variable
because responding uni ts m ay be on patrol and a re not n ecessarily dispatch ed fr om tl1 e Station .
Due to ilie rela ti ve proxinU ty of tl1e Stati on and propose d Project, ili e Station 's response times to
calls fo r se rvice fro m ilie pro p osed Projec t are ex pec ted to fa ll witlun tl1 e tim e ra n ges d escribed
above (County o f Los Angeles Sh eriff's De partme nt, 201 5 [Append ix E]).
The proj ec t involves construction of a mixed use building w itl1 15,000 square fe e t of comme rcial
space and 75 r esidential units. As d esc ribe d in Sec tion XI II , Popu latio11 a11d Housi ng, ilie p r oject
would add appr oximately232 res idents to ilie City. These additional r eside nts wo uld
incrementally increase tl1e demand fo r po li ce pro tec ti o n services by increasi ng tl1e Temple
S tati o n's service p o pula ti on to 192,495. This would increase tl1e current serv ice r atio of one
d e puty per 986 res idents to one deputy per 987 residents. However, Los Angeles County
m onitors sh e riff staffin g levels as pmt of tl1 e annual budgeting process to en s ure tl1at adequate
protec tion can continue e v en after n ew d evelopment projec ts ar e approved and consb·ucted. In
a dditio n, ilie Temple Station expects tl1 e p roposed project w ill h ave a less tl1a11 s ignificant
impact on resom ces and operations. This assessment is based largely on ilie fac t tl1 at ilie project
s ite is already witlun ilie Station's service area, and, a ltl1ough ilie propose d project would
increase tl1e local r esident population, daytime popul ation , and daily vehicle trips, such
increases would be less tl1an significa11 t a11d would not require new o r ex pa11d ed faciliti es
(Cow1ty of Los Angeles Sh eriff's Deparm1 ent, 2015).
LESS THAN SIGN IFICANT IMPACT
a (ii i) Would the projec t resu lt in sub stantia l adve rse physical impacts associated with the provi sion of
new or physically altered governmental faci lities, or the 11ee d f or new or phy sically altered gavernmental
facilities , the constructi on of which could cause sig11ijicallt e11 vironmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service mtios, response tim es or otlt er performan ce objectives for scho ols?
Temple City resid ents m·e served by e ight public sch ools in Temple City Utufi ed School Dis b·ict
(TCUSD) and a11 a dditional seven private sch ools. In addition to tl1e TCUSD, r esid ents m·e also
served by sch ools w itl1in ili e A rcadia Unifi ed School Disb·ict, El Monte City School District, and
Rosemead School Dis b·ict (Temple City Mid-Century P lan, 2014). The project site is located
witl1in TCUSD. Sc hools witlun tlUs dish·ic t in Temple City include Cloverl y Elem en ta ry School,
La Rosa Elem e ntary Sch ool, Longden Elem e nta ty School, Oak Avenue Intermediate School,
Temple City High Sch ool, and Doug Sea rs Learning Center. Em peror Elem e ntary Schoo l is
loca ted in ilie City of San Gabriel and fa ll s witllin tl1 e TCUSD. The Distric t has a total
enrollment capacity o f 6,000 students witl1 a c mrent enrollment of 5,700 students (Dmuel
Rodriguez, Se nio r P roj ec t Manager Con s ultant, Telacu Con s truction Man age m ent, Personal
Commwucation , June 12, 2015). Consb·ucti o n of tl1 e p roposed project would acconunodate an
es tim ated 232 n e w res id e nts to tl1e area and would be expec ted to include sc hool-a ged childr en
City of Temple City
67
Terrace s at Te m ple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
who w o uld a ttend local sch ools. T he s tude nts gen e rated by the proposed proj ec t w o uld
re present an incremental increase in the students se rved by TCUSD sch ools and w o uld fall
within the capacity for the Di s tri c t.
In addition, Govenunent Code 65995 (b) es tablish es the base amount of allowable d eveloper
fees a sch ool d is tri c t can collec t from d evelo pment projects loca te d w ithin its botmdaries. The
fees obtained by TCUSD are used to m a intain the desired sch ool ca p acity and the maintenance
and / or d evelopmen t of new sc hool facil iti es, thus elimina tin g impacts to school services as a
result of the proposed p roj ec t. Th e project proponents for any future resi d ential develo pments
would be require d to p ay the state-mandated sch ool impact fe es. Purs uant to Sec ti on 65995
(3 )(h) of the California Government Cod e (Se nate Bill 50, chapter ed A ugust 27, 1998), the
p ayment of statutory fees " .. .is d eeme d to be full and comple te mitiga ti on of the impacts of a n y
legisla tive or adjudicative ac t, o r b o th , involving, but n o t limite d to, th e planning, use, or
d evelopmen t of r eal proper ty, or any change in governmental organiza tion or r eo rganization.
Therefo re, impacts to sc hools within th e vic ini ty of th e projec t would be less than significant.
LESS THAN S I GNIFICANf IMPACT
a (iv) Wo uld the projec t res ult in subs tantial adverse physical inzpacts associated with th e provision of
new or physica lly altered governme11 tal faci lities, or th e need fo r new or physically al tered governmen tal
fa cilities, th e co nstnt ction of which co uld ca use signiftcmlt environmental impact s, in order to maintain
accep table serv ice rati os, response times or other perfonllmz ce objec tives fo r pa rks?
See Sec ti on XV, Rec reati on, for a disc ussion on impacts to parks.
a (v) Would the projec t res ult ill subs tantial adverse physical impacts associated with th e provision of
11 ew or physically alte red govenzmental facili ties, or the 11eed for 11 ew or physically altered govern mental
facilities, the cons tru ction of which co uld ca use significant environme11tal impac ts, in ord er to rnaintai11
acceptable serv ice ratios, response times or oth er perfonnmz ce objec tives for other public facilities?
The COtmty of Los An geles Public Libr a ty provides libra ry service to over 3.5 milli on residents
living in wunco rpor a te d areas and to r es idents of 51 of the 88 incor porated cities of Los A n ge les
County, including Temple City. Librruy services w itllin tl1e City ar e provide d by the Temple
Ci ty Library. The proposed projec t would accommodate a n estima ted 232 n e w r es idents to the
ar ea, w lud1 may increm entally increase tl1e d em and for li brary ser vices w itllin Temple City.
Howeve r, Temple City's librru·ies are funde d by proper ty taxes, w luch are levied tlu·oughout all
Los Angeles Co unty mlincorporated a reas and contrac t cities. The payment of these property
taxes would adequate ly offset projec t re lated fis cal impacts to library services and the
incremental increase in li braty de mru1d would n ot crea te the n eed for new or ex panded
faciliti es. Impacts would be less thru1 significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Temple City
68
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study -Mitigated Negative Declaratio n
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
I mpact Incorporated Impact Impact
XV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and reg ional parks
or other recreationa l facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
D D • D facil ity would occu r or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreat iona l
facilities or require th e construction or
expansion of recreational fac ilities which
might have an adver se physical effect on
D D • D the environment?
a) Wo ul d the proje ct in crease the use of ex istin g neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
fadlities such tha t sub stantial physical de teriora tion of the fadl i hJ wou ld ocatr or be acce lerated?
b) Doe s the projec t include rec rea tio11al fad li ties or require the co 11 stru ction or ex pan sion of recrea tional
fa cilities whi ch might have an adve rse physica l eff ec t 0 11 th e e11 vironm ent ?
Temple City has 2 pa rks, Li ve Oak Pa rk and Te mple City Park, which total18 acres. Liv e Oak
Park offers a playgrow1d area, picnic shel ters, one full and two half baske tball co urts, seven
tennis courts and fie l ds fo r base ball , softba ll , soccer and foo tball. Te mple City Park, con sists of
the Performing A r ts Pavilion, a sma ll playground, seven picnic tables, two barbecue pits and
r estroom faciliti es. Temple City Park is loca te d approx imately 0.2 miles w es t of the project site
and Live Oak Park is approx imately 0.8 m iles southwest of the site.
Based on the DOF popula ti on for Temple City in 2014 of 36,275, the re is approximately 0.5 acres
of p arks per 1,000 residents . The propose d proj ec t would acc ommodate approximately 232
peo ple. This wou ld increase the popul ation of Temple City to 36,507 and the amount of
parkland pe r 1,000 residents would remain at 0.5 acres. The Ci ty will require the p ayment of
park fees, as specified in the Temple City Mw1i cipal Cod e's New Consb·u ction Park Fees
ordinance, and as furthe r specified in the ad opted fee sc hedule, to offset any increm ental
increase in park demand which may result f rom the proposed development. The payment of
require d park fees w o uld be used to maintain, con s b"U c t o r d edica te p a rks within the City.
Impacts on existing City parks would be less than signifi ca nt.
LESS THAN SI GNIFICANT IMPACT
r City of Temple City
69
Terra ces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFF IC
--Would the project:
a) Conflict with an app licable plan , ordinance
or po licy establishing a measure of
effectiveness for the performance of the
c irculation system , taking into account all
modes of transport ation , including mass
transit and non-motori zed travel and
relevant com ponents of the c irculation
system , including but not limited to
in te rsections, streets , highways , and
freeways , pedestria n and bicycle paths ,
0 • 0 0 and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program , including , but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures , or other
standards establis hed by the county
congest io n management agency for
0 0 0 • des ign ated roads or highways ?
c) Result in a change in a ir traffi c patterns ,
including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that r esults
0 0 • D in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
0 0 • D use (e .g ., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 • 0
f) Conflict w ith adopted pol icies , plans, or
programs regarding public trans it ,
bikeways , or pedestrian facil ities , or
otherw ise substantiall y decrease the
0 0 • 0 performance or saf ety of such facilities?
A b·affic and circ ula tion study dated Jw1e 4, 2015 was prepared b y Associa ted T r af fic Engineers
for the proposed projec t (see full r ep ort in A ppendix F). The analysi s contained in this section is
partiall y based on the b·affic impact analysis.
Methodology
T h e traffic impac t s tudy follows the Los Angeles Cow1 ty Department o f Public W o rks T r affic
Impact Analysis Re port Guidelines (1997). T h e preferred L ev el o f Ser vice (LOS) analysis
m ethod for si g n a lized inter sections i s the Inte r section Capaci ty Utilization (ICU) m e thod,
City of Temple City
70
--·------
Te rraces at Temple C ity
Initial Study - Mi tigated Nega t ive Dec la ration
assuming roadway/ intersection capacity s ta ndards o f 1 ,6 00 v e hicl es pe r hour per lane with
2,880 vehicles for dua l left tum lanes . Lev els of serv ice fo r stop-si gn conb·o ll e d in te rsections are
a ssessed u s ing the unsign a lize d m e thodology o utlined in tl1e Hig hway Capacily Manual
(H CM).
The traffic impact s tudy an alyzes LOS for tl1e fo ll o win g scenar ios:
• Ex is ting Conditions
• Existing+ Projec t Conditi ons
• Opening Year Conditions 2018
• Opening Year+ Projec t Co nditions
• C umula tiv e Condition s
The b·affic impact s tudy analyzes LOS fo r tl1e fo ll owing intersec tions:
• T emple City Bo ul evar d/Gariba ldi Avenue
• T emple City Bo ulevard/Woodruff Avenue
• Las Tunas Drive/Cloverly Aven u e
• Las Tunas Drive/Primrose A venue
• Las T w1 as Drive/Temple City Boulevard
• Las T unas Drive/Camellia Avenue
• Las T unas Drive/Kauffman Aven ue
• Temple City Bo ul evard /Live Oak Avenue
T hres holds of Significance
Table 16 sh ows tl1e b·affic impac t c rite ri a fo r dete rmining s ignifica nt impac ts gen er ated by ili e
P r oject and/ or o ilie r related impacts as d escribe d in ilie T raffic Impact Analysis Re port
G uidelines 1997 by tl1 e Los Angeles Cow1ty De p artment of Public Works.
Tab le 16
L A OS nge es C t T ff ounty ra rc mpac t c "t 0 n ena
Pre-Project Conditions
Proje ct Increase in V/C
LOS V/C
c 0 .7 1 to 0 .80 0.04 or more
D 0 .81 to 0 .90 0.02 or more
E/F 0.91 or mo re 0.01 or more
Project Trip Generation
T rip gen er a tion fo recasts w ere d e ve loped for ilie project by ATE and City s taff. T h e b·ip
gen e ra ti o n analys is fo r tl1e proposed project assumes iliat 50 % of tl1e corrunercia1 squ are footage
(7,5 00 SF) woul d be occ upied by resta urants, which gen e ra te hig he r traffi c vo lumes on a sq ua re-
foo t bas is than general r eta il uses. The rem aining 50 % of ilie comme rcia l square fo o tage (7,50 0)
is assumed to be occ u pi e d by gen e ra l r e ta il uses.
r City of Temple City
7 1
Terraces at Temp le Cit y
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Dec laration
Trip gen e r ation estimates w e re ca lculate d for th.e proposed project u sing rates presen ted in the
Institute o f T r ansportation En gineers (ITE) T rip Generati o n Manua l, 9U• Editio n , 2012 and Los
An geles Cow1ty rates. The lTE rales for Hig h T urnover Sit-Down Resta urant (ITE Code 932)
w ere u sed for the proposed restaurant s quare foota ge; the ITE rates fo r Specialty Retail (ITE
Code 826) were used fo r the retail square footage; and the Los Ange les County ra tes were used
for th e pro p osed condominiums.
Give n the mix of commer cia l and reside ntial l and u ses, there will be so m e b·ip s made inte rna ll y
within th e si te that wo uld not a ffect the off-site s treet n e twork. "Inte rnal Ca pture" trips include
inte r actions between the comme rcial and residential u ses. The IT E mi xe d-use traffic model was
u sed to dete rmine the num be r o f b·ips that woul d be ca pture d within th e site during the critical
A.M. and P .M. p eak h o ur tim e periods. Th e mixed-u se m o d e l fow1d th a t 15 % o f the A.M. p eak
h o ur trips and 28 % of the P.M. peak hour u·ips w o ul d be internal to the s ite . However, C ity staff
recomme nded u sing a m o re con serva tive es timate of 10 % fo r the inte rnal ca pture trips .
T h e bips gen e ra ted by ex isting u ses were al so accounted fo r in the trip gen e ration a n alysis. Th e
ITErates fo r S pecialty Re tail (ITE Cod e 826) were u sed to estimate the traffic gen e ra te d by the
existing reta il squa re fo otage th a t w ill be removed fr o m the site.
Table 17 s umma rizes the b·ip gen e rati on analysis.
Tab le 17
rojec np enera 1on P . tT ' G t'
Sce nario /Land Use Size ADT A.M . Peak P.M. Peak
Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips
Pro~os ed Project
Restau rants 7 ,500 SF 127.15 95 4 10 .81 81 9.85 74
Reta il 7 ,500 SF 44.43 332 6.84 51 2.7 1 20
Condos 75 units 8.00 600 0.54 41 0.73 55
Tot als 1 886 173 149
Intern al Trips (10 %) 189 17 15
External Tri ps (90%) 1 679 156 134
Existing Uses 5,210 SF 44 .32 23 1 6.84 36 2.71 14 Reta il
Net New Trips(a) 1 ,466 120 120
Cumulative C onditions
C umulative conditions were fo r ec as t by assuming th e Opening Yea r + Pr oject b·affi c forecasts
plus c umula ti ve projects. Two proj ects w e r e ide ntifie d for the cumulative scenario: 1) Camellia
Square, a conune rcia l ce nte r at 557 0 Rosem ead Bo ul eva rd, and 2) Linden Walk, a resi dential
p roject located at 9250 Lower Azu sa Road.
a) Would the project co nfli ct with all applicable pla ll , ord inance or policy es tabli shing a meas ure of
effec tive ness for the pe7forman ce of the circu lati on syste 111, takiHg into account all modes of
tran sportatio11, in cluding mass tran sit an d non-motori zed travel and releva nt C011l(I01l ents of th e
circu lation sys tem, includin g but not li 111ited to i11tersections, stree ts, hi ghways, and freeways, pedes trimz
and biCljcle paths, and mass t ransit?
As sh own in Table 1 7, the project is fo r eca s t to gen e r a te 1,886 ADT, w ith 173 b·ips occu rring
during the A.M . p eak h o ur and 149 b·ip s occ urring during th e P.M. p eak hour . The total num ber
City of Temple City
72
T erraces at Temple Ci ty
Initial Study-Mit ig ated Ne gative Declaration
of b·i ps tha t wou ld be ex ternal to th e s ite (90 %) a re 1,679 ADT, 156 AM. p eak h o ur trips and 134
P.M. peak h o ur trips . The existing uses on the s ite ge nerate 231 ADT, 36 AM. p eak h our b·ips,
and 14 P .M. peak h our b·ips so the net inc rease i.n traffic wo uld be 1,466 ADT, 120 AM. peak
hour trips , and 120 P .M. peak h o ur trips .
Levels o f service w e re ca lculate d for th e s tudy-a rea intersecti on s ass uming the Ex is ting +
Projec t vo lum es. Tables 18 and 19 compare the Ex isting and Ex is tin g + Proj ec t peak h o ur levels
of service and identify impacts based o n Lo s Angeles County b·affi c impac t crite ria.
Table 18
E"f XIS mg + p ro1ec t L I f S eves o erv1ce -AMP k H ea our
Existing Existinq + Proiect Proiect Added
Intersection ICU LOS IC U LOS V/C Significant
Impact?
Temp le City
Boulevard /Garibaldi 0 .628 LOS B 0 .630 LO S B 0 .002 NO
Aven ue
Temple City
Bou levard/Wood ruff 0 .542 LOSA 0 .553 LOSA 0 .011 NO
Aven ue
Las T unas
Drive/C loverly 0 .501 LOSA 0.508 LOSA 0 .007 NO
Avenue
Las T unas
Drive/Primrose 0.474 LOSA 0.485 LOSA 0 .011 NO
Avenue
Las Tunas
Drive/Temple City 0 .791 LOSC 0 .806 LOS D 0 .0 15 NO
Bou levard
Las T unas
Drive/Camellia 0.484 LOSA 0.487 LOSA 0.003 NO
Avenue
La s T unas
Drive/Kauffm an 0.493 LOSA 0.495 LOSA 0.002 NO
Aven ue
Tem ple City
Boul evard/Live Oak 0 .61 9 LOS B 0 .620 LOS B 0 .001 NO
Avenue
City of Temple City
73
Terraces at Temp le City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative De c laration
Table 19
E"f X I S lnQ + rojec eves o P . tl I fS erv1ce-PM P kH ea our
Intersection Existing Existing+ Project Project Add ed
ICU LOS ICU LOS V/C Impac t ?
Temp le C1t y
Bouleva rd/Ga ri baldi 0 .520 LOSA 0 .522 LOSA 0 .002 NO
Ave nue
Temp le C it y
Boulevard/\Noodru ff 0 .535 LOSA 0 .566 LOSA 0 .0 31 NO
A venue
Las Tuna s
Drive/C loverly 0 .583 LOS A 0 .586 LOS A 0 .003 NO
Aven ue
Las Tunas
Drive/Primros e 0 .500 LOSA 0.507 LOSA 0 .007 NO
Avenue
Las Tuna s
Drive/Te mple City 0 .866 LOS D 0 876 LOS D 0010 NO
Bou levard
Las Tunas
Drive /Came llia 0 .51 7 LOSA 0 .52 1 LOSA 0 .004 NO
Avenue
La s Tu nas
Dri ve /Kauffm an 0 .505 LO S A 0 .507 LOS A 0 .002 NO
A venue
Temple C ity
Boulevard/Live Oak 0 .582 LOSA 0 .584 LOSA 0 .00 2 NO
Aven ue
As sh o w in ta b le s 18 and 19, the pro jec t w o u ld n ot s ig nific an tl y impact any stu d y area
inte rsections with Existin g+ P ro ject b·affic volumes based on tl1e City's impact c ri te r ia .
Th e trips gen era ted b y tl1 e two c u m ula ti ve p rojec ts wer e assigne d to tl1e s tudy-a rea sb·eet
n e two rk and fu e n add e d to fue Opening Year + Project traffic forecasts to d evelop tl1 e
C u mula ti ve fo r ecasts. T a bles 20 and 21 compa re the Opening Yea r + P rojec t and C umulative
p eak h o ur levels o f service fo r tl1 e stud y a re a in te rsections. The tables also identify c umu lative
i m pacts based on the City's a d opte d im pa c t c r i te ri a.
City of Temple City
74
Te rraces at Tem p le Ci ty
Initial Study -Mitigated Negative Decla ration
Table 20
Cumulative Levels of Service -AM Peak Hour
Intersection Ope ning Year+ Project Cumulative Projec t Added
ICU L OS ICU LOS V/C Impact?
Temple C ity
Boulevard/Garibaldi 0 .651 LOS B 0 .652 LOS B 0 .001 NO
Avenue
Temple C ity
Boulevard/Woodruff 0.566 LOSA 0 .567 LOSA 0.001 NO
Avenue
Las Tunas
Drive/Cloverly 0 .523 LOSA 0 .541 LOSA 0 .018 NO
Avenue
Las Tunas
Dri ve/Primrose 0.498 LOSA 0 .519 LOSA 0 .02 1 NO
Avenue
Las Tunas
Drive/Temple City 0.832 LOS D 0 .847 LOS D 0 .015 NO
Boulevard
Las Tunas
Drive /Camellia 0 .503 LOSA 0 .5 15 LOSA 0.012 NO
A ven ue
Las Tunas
Drive/Kauffman 0.510 LOSA 0 .523 LOSA 0.013 NO
Avenue
Temple City
Bo u leva rd/Live Oak 0 .636 LOS B 0 .638 LOSA 0.002 NO
Aven ue
Table 21
Cumulative Levels of Service-P.M. Peak Hour
Intersection Op ening Year+ Project Cumulative Project Added
ICU LOS ICU LOS V/C Impact?
Temple City
Boulevard/Garibaldi 0 .538 LOSA 0 .539 LOSA 0.00 1 NO
Avenue
Temple City
Boulevard/Woodruff 0 .579 LOS A 0 .580 LOSA 0 .001 NO
Avenue
Las Tunas
Drive/Cloverly 0.604 LOS B 0 .623 LOS B 0 .019 NO
Avenue
Las Tunas
Drive/Primrose 0.523 LOSA 0 .543 LOSA 0.020 NO
Avenue
Las Tunas
Drive/Temple City 0 .907 LOSE 0 .920 L OSE 0 .013 YES
Bou levard
Las Tunas
Drive/Camell ia 0 .540 LOSA 0 .555 LOSA 0 .015 NO
Aven ue
Las Tu nas
Drive/Kauffman 0 .524 LOSA 0 .536 LOSA 0.012 NO
Avenue
Temple City
Boulevard/Li ve Oak 0 .596 LOS B 0 .598 LOSA 0 .002 NO
Avenue
As shown above in tables 20 and 21 , all b ut one of the study area inte rs ec tions are forecas t to
operate at LOS D or be t te r under Cumula ti ve conditions, which meets the Los Angeles County
City of Te mple City
75
r-----------------~------------------------------------------------~--------------
Te rraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Dec la ration
LOS D standard. "D1e Las Tunas Drive/Templ e C ity Bo ule vard in tersection is forecast to opera te
at LOS E during the P.M. peak hour period unde r Cumulative conditions and the Cumulative
projects would result in a V /C increase of 0.01 3, which is con sidered a s ignificant cu m ulative
impact based on the Los Ange les Cow1ty traffic impact criteria.
POTENTIALLY S IGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b) Would the projec t co nfli ct with an app li cable congestio n management program , including, bu t not
limited to level of serv ice sta ndards and trav el de111and meas ures, or other standard s es tabli shed by the
counhJ congestion management a ge net; for designated roads or highways?
T h e Los Angeles County Congestion Manage m e nt Program (CMP) re quires an analysis of all
arte rial segments and a rterial monito ring inte rsec tions on the CMP roa d way n e twork where the
project a dds 50 o r more p eak h o ur b·ips. Add itionally, th e CMP would re qui r e that all m a inline
freewa y monitoring locations be eva lua te d w h e r e the project adds 15 0 o r more p eak hour trips.
Th e projec t would not add 150 or more p ea k h our b·ip s to any freeway segment; the refore, a
C MP freeway analysis is n ot require d. Th e n ear est CMP ar te ri a l to the p rojec t is Rosem ead
Boulevard (Sta te Route 19), approximate ly 0 .7 miles to the w es t. The project would not add 50
b·ips to Rose m ea d Bo ulevard . The refore, a CMP analysis is n o t re quire d and impacts would be
less than s ignificant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c) Would the projec t re sult in a change in air traffic pattern s, includ in g either an ina·ease in traffi c leve ls
or a change in location that res ults i11 sub stantial saf eh; ri sks?
Given the fact tha t the projec t site is l oca ted over two miles n orthwes t of the nearest airport, El
Monte Airpor t, the projec t would not present any impediments to air b·affi c, and would not
affect air traffi c p a tte rns. Therefore, the r e would be no impact from air b·affic partte rns.
NO IMPACT
d) W ould the proje ct su bstanti ally illcreas e ha zards du e to a des ign f ea ture (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous i11tersec ti ons) or in compatible use (e.g., fa nil equipment)?
The p r oposed project would n o t inb·oduce any design features s u d1 as sh a rp curves or
incompatible u ses to the p roject site that would substantiall y increase h azar ds a t the si te. Access
is proposed via one driveway on Woodruff Avenue and tlu-ee driveways on the a ll eyway tl1at
runs along the wes t side of the p r oject site . T h e la y out of tl1 e driveways and inte rna l roadways
wou ld be s traightforward and unconsb·ained, and would adequ ately serve the inte nde d traffic.
Therefore, impacts re la te d to h aza rd s due to d esign features or incompa tible u ses woul d be less
than s ignificant.
LESS THAN S IGNIFICANT IMPACT
r City of Temple City
76
-------------------
Terra ces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
e) Would the projec t result in inadeq uate emergenClJ access ?
The proj ec t would no t res ult in inade quate e m ergency access because it wo uld be s ubj ect to
LACoFD review of s ite plans, si te construction, and the ac tua l s tmctures prior to occupancy to
e nsure tha t req uir ed fir e protec ti on safety features, including building s prinklers and
em er gency access, ar e imple mented . Th e Los Angeles Sheriff's De parbTl.ent (LASD) al so wo uld
r evi ew the propose d ingress and egress to ens ure that site access is adequa te fo r police
protec ti o n . Th erefore, impacts r elate d to inadequate emer gen cy access would be less than
s ignificant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
f) Would the project co nfli ct with ad opted policies, plan s, or progra ms regarding publi c tran sit, bikeways,
or pedes trian facil ities, or otherwise sub stan tially decrea se the pe1jorman ce or safe h; of such faciliti es ?
Th e proposed projec t would no t conflict with adopted p olicies, p lans, or progr am s regarding
p ublic b·ans it, bikeways , o r p ed es b·ian fac iliti es, or oth erwise s ubstantially d ec rease th e
p e rformance or safety of such facilities. Various alte rnatives to d riving to the s i te are present.
Cu rrently tl1 e projec t site can be accesse d via sidewalks witl1 h andi cap ramps alo n g Temple
City Bo ulevard and Woodruff Avenue. Th e bus s to p nearest to tl1e project is a t the n o rtheast
corner of Temple City Boulevard an d Woodruff Avenue. Th e Los Angeles County Meb·opolitan
Transpor ta ti o n A utl1ority (Metro) bus line 267/264 provides service in Pasaden a, Al tade na, City
of Hope, and El Mon te , w i th Temple City included as a s top in be tween . Furtl1er south along
Temple City Boul evar d the re is another bus stop near tl1e intersection of Temple City Bou leva rd
and Las T unas Drive serviced by Me b·o bus line 078/079/378 which provides service be tween
Downtown Los An ge les and Arcadia.
The proposed projec t is require d to be con s b·u cted according to City and LACoFD regulations
p ertaining to ingress and egress, which would prevent h azardous con ditions confli cting with
alternati ve m o d es of b·ansportation. Sec ti on 9-l E-23 of the Temple City Municipal Code
requires nonresiden ti al developments of at least 25,000 square fee t to provide or display public
or alternative b·ansit information. Howe ver, the proposed project o nly incl udes 15,000 square
feet of n onresidenti a l d evelopment and tl1e refore is n o t subj ec t to this requirement. Therefore,
tl1e projec t would have a less than sigrlliicant impac t with respect to adopted policies, plans, or
progr ams r egarding p u blic transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, and would not otl1etwise
subs tan tially d ecrease the perfom1ance or safety of such faci lities.
LESS THAN SI GNIFICANT IMPACT
Mitigation Measures
Project-Specifi c Mitiga ti on Measures
There a1·e n o s ignificant projec t-specific traffic impacts and tl1e refore no miti ga ti on is necessruy.
Cumulati ve Mitiga tion Measu res
City of Temple Ci ty
77
T erraces at Tem ple City
In itial Study-Mitigated Negative Decl aration
Mitigation MeasW'e T-1 o r T-2 is required to reduce the cumu la tive s ignificant tr a ffi c impact
fore cast at the Las Tunas Drive/Temple City Bo uleva rd intersection, w hid1. is for ecas t to
o p erate a t LOSE during the P.M. p eak h our p eri o d w1d er Ctunula ti ve cond iti on s.
T-1 Northbound Ri g ht-T urn Lane at Temple City Boulevard/Las Tunas Boul evard.
A n orthbound ri g ht turn la n e shall be imple mented o n Temple City Bo ule v ard at
th e intersec ti on with Las Tunas Drive by resb·iping the south leg of the
inte rs ec tion and/ or via mino r widening o f the so uth leg. Th e c urb-to-curb wi dth
of Temple City Bo ulevard is 64 fee t. Res b·iping the lan es to provide two 11 -foot
southbo tmd tlu-o ug h lanes, one 10-foot n orthbotmd left-turn la n e, two 11-foo t
n o rtl1bo tmd tlu-o u gh lanes, a nd one 10-foo t lan e n orthbo und r ight-turn l an e
co uld be accomplish ed w itlun the existing cu rb-to-c W'b width. This improvement
would provide LOS D (V /C 0.88 5) during tl1e P .M . p e ak h o ur unde r C umulative
condition s . This mitiga ti on would r equire removal o f fou r parall el parking
s pace s on the w est s ide o f tl1.e s b·ee t be tw een La s Tunas Drive and ilie first
comme rcial driveway soutl1 of Las Tunas D rive. The pl ans for a norilibow1d
r ight-tum lane on Temp le City Bo ulevard shall b e s u bmitted by tl1e applicant to
tl1e City fo r r eview and approval prior to issuance of a building p ermit and
con s b·u cti on shall be comp le ted prior to the issuance of tl1.e Certific ate of
Occ upa n cy.
T-2 Reduced Project Size. Th e impac t ana lysis ass um ed tl1 a t tl1e 15,000 SF of
commercial s p ace would be 7,5 00 SF of res tauran ts a nd 7,500 SF of gener al retail
u ses . The foll owing mitigati on options a re r e quired to reduce project b·ip
gener a tion by a mil1imwn of 10 %:
• Ch anging the mi x to 5,000 SF of r es taurant and 10,000 SF o f gen eral retail
u ses. Or;
• Reducing the ove rall commer cia l area to 12,000 SF with 6,000 SF of restaurant
and 6,000 SF of general re tail uses would re duce tl1.e P.M. p eak h o ur tip
gen eration by 10 % and mitigate tl1e impac t. Or;
• Re ducing the ove ra ll projec t size (reduction in residential uses and
comme rcia l uses) to accomplish tl1 e 10% r e duction in b·affic.
Revised site pla ns sha ll be s ubmitted to tl1 e City fo r review and approval
illus b·a ting compliance w itl1 one of ilie optio n s lis ted above prior to issuance of a
buil ding permi t.
Foll owing imple m en ta ti o n o f mi ti ga tion m easures T-1 or T-2, the Las Tunas/Temple City
Bo ulevard inte rsec ti on would o p er a te a t LOS D during the P.M. peak h o ur p e riod tmde r
C umula ti ve conditions, reducing impacts rela ted to appli ca ble pla ns, o rdinances, or poli cies to
less than sigtUficant.
City of Temple City
78
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Dec laration
Potentially
Sign ifica nt
Potentially Un less Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XVII. UTI LITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
--Would th e project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regio nal
0 0 • 0 Water Quality Co ntr ol Board?
b) Requ ire or result in th e construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environ mental effects? • 0 0 0
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm wate r d rai nage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
constr uction of which could cause
significant environmen tal effects? 0 0 • 0
d ) Have sufficient wat er suppl ies available to
serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new o r
0 expanded enti tlem ents needed ? 0 • 0
e) Result in a det e rm ination by the
wastewater treatm ent provider which
serves or may serve the project that it ha s
adequate capacit y to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
0 0 0 0 provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
0 0 • 0 project's solid was te disposal needs?
g) Com ply wit h federa l, state, and local
statutes and regu lat ions re lated to so lid
0 0 • 0 wa ste?
a) Would the projec t exceed wastewater treatment require111ents of the applicable Regio nal Water Qualitlj
Contro l Board?
Unde r Secti o n 402 of the Federal C lean Wate r Ac t (CWA), the Region a l Water Q u a lily Control
Board (RWQCB) iss u es Na ti o n a l Pollutant Di sch a r ge Eliminatio n Sys te m (NPDES) permits to
regu la te waste disch arges to "wate rs of th e U.S.," w hic h includes ri ve rs, lak es, and their
b·ibutary waters. Waste discharges include disc h a rges o f s to rmwater and consb·uction project
discharges. Con s b·u c ti o n of a project resultin g in the disturbance o f more tha n o ne acre requires
a n NPDES permit. Con stru c ti o n p r oject p r oponen ts are also require d to prepa re a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), w hich woul d e n s ure compliance wi th the RWQCB
s to rmwater discharge re quire m ents. Te m.p le C ity h as prepare d the G r een S b·eets Manual which
City of Temple City
79
------------..
Terraces at Tem ple Ci ty
Initial Study-Mitigated Ne gative Dec larati on
co mmercial and r es id e ntial uses fo r the pr ojec t based on the disc u ssed gen e ration rates.
Table 22
as ewa er w t t G enera 1on o as or e f T t I f th P ropose d p 0 t roJec
Land Us e Gen erat io n Rate W astewater Gene rated (Gpd )
15,000 SF Com mercial 80 Gpd/1 000 SF 1,200 Space
20-0ne Bed room Uni ts 120 Gpd 2,400
47-Two Bed room Uni ts 160 Gpd 7,520
8-Thre e Bedroom Uni ts 200 Gpd 1,600
Tot al 12,720
Source. LA CEQA Thresholds Guide prepared by the C1ty of Los Angeles
Prior to the issuance of g rading permits, th e projec t appli can t would be requ ired to satisfy
LACSD's requirem en ts for the payment o f fees and/or the provis ion of a dequate wastewater
fac ilities. The Dis trict is autho ri zed by the Cal ifo rni a H ealth and Saf ety Cod e to ch arge a fee fo r
connec tin g ( di1·ec tl y or indir ec tl y) to tl1e Dis b·ic t' s Sewerage Sys te m or increasing the s b·ength o r
q uanti ty o f was tewa te r attributa ble to a pa rtic u lar pa rcel or o per a ti on alread y connected. 111is
c01mec ti on fee is a capital faciliti es fee tha t is im posed in an am o un t s u ffic ient to con sb·u ct an
incr emental expansion of the sewera ge sys te m to acco mmod ate a p roposed p rojec t. Th e
pay me nt of a com1ec ti on fee would be req uir ed befo re a p ermit to cotmec t to th e sewer is
iss ue d . Beca use the proposed projec t wo u ld com p ly w ith LA CSD' s fee p ayment requirements,
impacts woul d be les s th an s ignifi cant.
POTENTIALLY S I GNIFI CANT IMPACT
j) Would tlle projec t be served by a landfill with sufficient penuitted capacihJ to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Would tlze projec t comply with federal, state, and loca l statutes a11d regulati ons related to so lid
waste?
Temple City conb·acts w i th A then s Se rv ices to collec t, b·ans p o rt, and dispose of soli d waste for
al l res ide ntial and com m ercial uses (Temp le City, 201 4). So li d was te fr om Temple City is
co ll ec ted by A then s Se rvices a nd taken to their r ecycl in g and so rtin g fac ility, th e City of
In d us hy Ma te rial s Recove1y Fac ili ty (MRF). Food was te is p rocessed an d d eli ve red to th ei r
compos t fac ili ty, Am e rican O rga11ics, in Vic tor v ill e (A then s, 2014). Waste tha t cannot be
r ecycl ed is disposed of a t a lan d fi ll . A the n s Se rv ices b·a n s p orts waste to the San Be rna rdin o
County La ndfill sys tem . A then s Ser vices h as a conb·act w ith Coun ty of San Be rnardi no to
import waste. Thus, solid waste fr o m Te m p le City may be deli ve red to Sa n Be rn a r dino Cow1ty
la ndfill s, incl uding Mid-Va ll ey Landfi ll (permitted capaci ty of 7,500 tons/ day), San Tin1oteo
Landfill (p ermitte d ca pacity of 2,000 tons/ day), Victorville Landfill (perm itted capacity of 3,000
ton s/ day), Ba rs tow Landfill (permi tted capac ity of 1,200 ton s/ day), o r Lan ders Landfil l
(per mi tted capaci ty of 1,200 tons/ day) (CalRecycle, 2015). For Los Angeles County, the
reside n tial was te d is posa l ra te is 0 .41 tons pe r cap ita per year. Th e proposed p roject wo u ld
gen e rate appr oxima tely 232 n ew residen ts a n d, th ere fo re, would genera te an additi onal95.1
to ns of soli d was te per yea r o r 0.26 tons of solid was te per d ay. This rate is w ith in the permitted
City of Temple Ci ty
83
Terra ce s at Temp le City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
capacity for all landfills se rvicing the proj ec t site; th e re fore , impacts related to solid was te
disposal would be less than si gnificant.
LESS THAN S I GNIFI CANT IMPACT
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures U-1 and U-2 are required to reduce impacts to was te water infrastructure to
less than significant levels .
U-1 Wastewater Infrastructur e. Prior to final map approval the applicant
shall submit sewer p lans to upgrade of the sewerage system as fow1d to
be inadequate per the sewer area study prepared by Cal Land
Engineering (Segment MI-l 281 to MI-l 5 07 is inadequate).
U-2 Prior to final map the applicant sh all submit a p erforman ce bond as
determined by the City to e ns ure the upgrade of the sew er main
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the proj ect have the potentia l to
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, ca use a fish or w ildl ife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels , eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce th e number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history o r
0 0 • 0 prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumu latively
considerable? ("C umulatively
cons iderable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable whe n
viewed in connectio n w ith the effects of
past projects , the effects of other cu rrent
projects, and the effects of probable future
0 • 0 0 projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will ca use substantial
adverse effects on human beings , e ither
0 • 0 0 directly or indirectly?
City of Temple City
84
Terraces at Temple City
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Dec laration
REFERENCES
Bibliography
Califo mia A ir Pollution Control Officers Associa ti on (CAPCOA). CEQA & Clirnate Change.
Janu axy 2008. ...
Ca l ifomi a De partment of Conser vation. Los An ge les Cow1ty Willia m son Ac t FY 2012 /201 3
Map. 2013
California Deparbnent of Conservation. Offi cia l Tsunami Inundation Map s: Los Angeles Cou my.
201 3 . Availa bl e a t:
h ttp://www.con ser va ti on.ca.gov I cgs/ ge ologic h azards/Tsunami/Inu ndation Maps/Los
Angeles I Pages I LosAnge les.aspx.
Califomia Department of Eduaction. DataQuest: Enrollment Report for Temple City Unified
Sch ool Dis tric t. March 13, 2015 . A vailable at: http:// data1.cde .ca .gov / dataques t/.
Califomia Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Es timates fo r Citi es, Co unties, an d
tlze State, 2011 -2014 w ith 2010 Ce nsu s Ben chm ark, 2015.
Califomia De parbnent of Resources Recycling and Recovety (CalRecycle). Es timated So lid
Was te G en eration and Disposal Rates. Decembe r 21 ,2011. Availa ble a t:
h ttp://www.ca lrecycl e.ca.gov/wastech a r /WasteGenRates/defau lt.h tm .
California De partment of Toxic Substances Conb·ol. ENVIROSTOR Da ta base.
http:// www.dtsc .ca.go v /Site Cleanup/ Cortese_List.cfm Acce ssed Februaty 201 5 .
California Environmental P r o tection Agen cy (CalEPA) and Department of Toxic Substances
Conb·o l. Managing H azard ou s Waste . W e bsite accessed Fe bruaty 2015
http:// www.en viros tor.dtsc.ca .gov /pu blic/.
Califomia State Water Resources Conb·ol Bo ard . GEOTRACKER Database .
https:// geo b·acker .waterboards.ca.gov /, Accessed Fe bruary 2015.
Federal Railroad Adminis b·ation, Human Response to Different Leve ls of Groun dborn e Vibra tio11,
1993 .
Feder al Transit A dminisb·ation (FT A), Tran sit Noise and Vibrati on Impa ct Assess ment, May 2006.
Los Angeles Times. A di strict-by-district look at th e propose d water restri ctions. By Thomas Suh
Lauder. A pril 8, 201 5.
Meb·opolitan Wa ter Di sb·ict of Southern Ca lifomia. We bsite . (www.bew a terwise.com).
Accessed March 9, 2015.
City of Temple City
86
,-------------------
Te rraces at Temple C ity
Initial St udy-Mitigated Negative Dec laration
Metropolitan Wa ter District of So uthern Ca li fornia. Februaq 9, 201 5 . Per sis te nt d r ought
condition s cou ld compel Metropolitan to limit importe d wate r s u p plies for region this
s ummer. Accessed March 9, 2015. Accessed a t
http://www.mwdh2o.com/mw dh2o/pages/news/press r eleases/201 5-
02/Alloca ti on scen arios introduced.pdf.
Metropolitan Water Dis b·ict of Southern California. Mar ch 2, 2015. M e tropolitan Gen eral
Manager iss ues s ta te m ent on revi se d S tate Wate r Project alloca ti on. Acc esse d March 9, 20 15.
Acc esse d a t http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/news/press re leases/2015-
03/ GMstatement revisedSWPallocation .pdf.
So uth Coast Air Quali ty Manageme nt District (SCAQMD). 2012 Air Quali ty Management Plan.
Available a t: http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/2012aqmp/index.h bn.
South Co as t Air Quali ty Management District. 1993 CEQA Air Qua lity H andbook.
South Coast A ir Quali ty Managem ent Disb·ict, CEQA, Final Lo calized Significan ce Threshold
M e thodology, SC AQMD, June 20 03. Avail able at:
http://www.aqmd.gov /CEOA/handbook/LST /Method fina l.pdf
South Coa s t A ir Quality Management Dis b·ict, Draf t AQMD Staff CEQA Gree nhou se Gas
Sign ifi can ce T7n·es hold, August 2008. Available at
http://www.aqmd .gov/ceqa/handbook /GHG/2008/au g27m t g/GHGproposal augmtg.p
df.
South C o as t A ir Quality Management Disb·ict. Greenho use Gas CEQA Significance Tiu-es hold
Stakehold e r Working Group Meeting #1 5: "Proposed Tie r 3 Quantitative Thr esho ld s -
Option 1", September 2010 . Availa ble at:
http:// www.aqmd.gov I ceqa/handbook/ GHG/2010 I se pt28mtg/ gh gmtg15-web.pdf
Southe rn C a lifornia Associ a ti on of Governments. Re gion a l Transporta ti on Plan 201 2-2035,
G rowth Forecast Appendix. April 201 2.
State of California. Executive Order B-29-15. Acc es sed April 9, 201 5 . Acc es se d a t
http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15 Exec utive Order.pdf.
S tate Wa ter Resources Control Bo ard. S tate Wat er Board Dro ught Yea r Wa ter Act·ions , Prop osed
Emergenct; Co nse rvati on Regul ation Sch edu le. Accessed April 9, 2015. Accessed a t
http:// www.waterboards.ca.gov /wa te rri ghts /water issues/programs/ drought/ exec utive
order sc he dule.shbnl.
S uru1 y Slope Water Compan y. One Hundre d and Tw entie th Aru1Ual Re p ort. 2014. Available a t:
http://www.s unnyslopewatercompany.co m /news/.
Temple City, City of. General Plan. Adop te d April 21, 1987.
Ci ty of Temple C ity
87
Terraces at T emple City
Initial St u dy-Mitigated Negative Declarati on
Temple Ci ty, City of. Publi c Utili ti es . 2014. Available at: http://www.ci .tem ple-
city.ca.u s/211/Public-Utilities .
Uppe r San Ga briel Valley Wa ter District. Website . (h ttp://upperdis tric t.org/) Accesse d. July
15,201 5.
Uppe r San Gabrie l Valley Wate r Dis b·ict. Ur ban Water Manage ment Plan. Available at:
http://u p p erdis tric t.or g/wp:content/upload s/2012/11/UD-Urban-Wa ter-Manage ment-
Plan -P art-I.pd£. Acc essed on Jul y 15, 2015.
Persons Contacted
Bagwell , Lore tta, P lamling Analys t, Los An ge les County Fire De p artment, contac ted on June 18,
201 5 .
Rodri g uez, Daniel, Senior Project Manager/Consultant, Telacu Construction Manage ment,
contacted on June 1 2, 2015.
City of Temple City
88
Te rra ces at Temple City
M it igatio n Mon itoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation M onitoring and Reporting Pro gra m
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Ter races at
Te mple City project pro posed in th e City o f Temple C ity . CEQA requires ad o ptio n of a
re p o rting or m o nito ring progr a m for the conditions of project approval tha t are n ecessar y to
miti ga te o r avoid significant effects on the envir onment (Public Reso urces Cod e 21081 .6). T h e
MMRP is designed to en s ure compliance with adopted mitiga ti o n m eas ures during proj e ct
impleme ntation. Fo r each mitigation m easur e recomme nde d in th e Initial Study-Mitiga ted
Negative Decla r a tion (I S-MND), specific a ti ons are m ade h erein tha t identify the action re q uired
and the m o nito rin g tha t mus t occur. In a ddition, a responsible agency is identified for verifying
compliance with individua l conditions o f approval co n ta ine d in the MMRP.
In additio n to ensurin g implementation of mitiga ti on measures, the MMRP provides feedback
to agency s taff and decision-makers during project imple m entati on , and identifies the need for
enfo r cemen t ac ti on befo re irrevers ible envir onmental damage occ urs. This MMRP will be used
by City staff o r the City's consultant to d e termine compliance with permit conditions.
Violations of these conditions may ca use the City to r e voke the operating p e rmit.
The fo ll owin g tabl e ide ntifies each mitigation m eas ure included in the IS-MND; the ac ti o n
required fo r the m eas ure to be implemented; the tim e at which the m onitoring is to occ ur; the
m o nito ring fre que n cy; and the agen cy or p arty responsible for en s urin g tha t the monitoring is
performed. In a ddition , the ta ble includes columns for complian ce verifica tion. These co lumns
w ill be filled o ut by the moni toring agency or par ty and would document monitorin g
compliance. Where an impac t was identified to be less than significant, no mitigation m easures
were required.
City of Te mple City
Terraces at Temple City
Mitigati on Mo n itoring and Reporti ng Program
When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification
Mit igation Measure /Condition of Approval Action Require d Mon itoring to Agency or Init ial Date Comments
Occur Frequency Party
A esthet ics
AES-1 S h adow Reduction. The applicant shall revise Review of final Before issuance Once Temple C ity
the proj ect design to reduce shadows on neighboring building plans to of grad ing Plann ing
residences located on Woodruff A venue through confirm redesign to perm it Department
completing one of the following options : avoid shadow impacts
a) Reduced Bu ilding Height and Vertical Setbacks . The
he ight of the building shall be reduced by 10' 3" reducing
the bu ild ing from five floors to four floors. Additionally , the
vertical setba ck on the 4th floor on th e north s ide of the
project adj acent t o Woodruff Avenue shall be increased by
16' from the edge of the eastern most balcony. Revi sed
pla ns shall be subm itted to the C ity for review and
approval prior to approval of a bu ild ing perm it.
b ) Proj ect Redes ign and Shadow Analys is. The applicant
shall redes ign the proj ect as to not cast shadows on
neighboring light-sensit ive uses for more than four hours
between early April and late October (including summer
solstice) between the h ours of 9:00AM and 5:00 PM or for
more than three hours between late October and early
April (i ncluding the winter solstice) between the hours of
9:00AM and 3 :00 PM . The applicant shall submit rev ised
plans and a shadow impact ana lys is to the City for review
and approval prior to issuance of any Building or Grading
Perm it.
Geology
GE0-1 Geotec hnical Engineering Report Review of final Final build ing On ce of plan Temple City
Recomm endations. All re commendations made in Rep ort building plans to plan review review; Plann ing and
of Geotehnical Engin eering Investigat ion, Proposed 5-confirm in corporation before issuance period ically for Publ ic Works
Story , Mixed Use Development , with One Level of of geotechn ical of grad ing field verification Departments Subterraneous Garage, 5935-5953 Temple City
Boulevard, APN : 8587-014-029, Temple C ity , California recommendations ; perm it ; field
(QCI , 201 5) s hall be implemented during grading, field verificat ion of verification
excavatio n. and co nstruction of the proposed p roject. Th is compl iance throughout
in cludes, but is not limited to the rem oval of surficial soi ls , construction
treatment of removal bottoms, structural backfill.
foundation design , foundation construction , concrete
slabs , reta ining wall drainage , and temporary e xcavation
and backfill. The recommended inspect ion by a
City of Temple City
2
Terraces at Temple City
Mitigati on Monitoring and Reporting Program
When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification
Mitigation Measure/Cond ition of Approval Action Required Monitoring to Agency or Initial Date Comments
Occur Frequency Party
geotechnical engineer in Section 7.0 of the report shall
also be completed to ensure compliance with the report .
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 Human Health Risk Assessment. Prior to Verification that an Before issuance Once Temple City
issuance of building pe rmit, the applicant sha ll complete a HHRA has been of grading Planning
human health risk assessment (H HRA) to evaluate the conducted and any perm it Depa rtmen t
potential for vapor intrusion of known soi l gas necessary remediation contaminants , TCE and PCE , into the proposed project
and create unacceptable risks . If an unacceptable risk is has been implemented
identified , the applicant shall develop a remedial action
plan to reduce contaminants to below level s of regulatory
concern . Any remediation activities, such as soil vapor
extraction , shall be performed by qualified and licensed
profess ionals in the particular problem identified and all
work shall be performed under the supervision of the
appropriate requlatorv oversight program .
HAZ-2 Asbestos Survey and Abatement. Prior to the Verification that an Before issuance Once Temple City
disturbance of any suspect asbestos-containing materials asbestos survey has of demolition Planning
at the proJect site, a comprehensive survey , designed to been conducted and permit Departm ent
determ ine if the suspect materials are regulated , shall be any necessary completed by the applicant. If such materials are identified
abatement has been and need to be disturbed , repaired or removed , a licensed
abatement contractor shall be consulted to properly implemented
remo ve any asbestos in accordance with the requirements
of SCAQMD Rule 1403.
Noise
N-1 Noise Reduction Measures. Temporary Review of fina l Construction Once for Temple City
construction impacts would be reduced through construction specifications specifications Planning
implementation of the following noise reduction measures: specifications ; field review before review; Department
Noise and groundbome vibration construction verification of issuance of periodically for .
activities whose specific location on the Project Site compliance grading permit; field verification
may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and field verification
generators, cement mixing , general truck idling) shall during
be conducted as far as possible from the nearest construction
noise-and vibration-sensitive land uses . . When possible, construction activities sha ll be
scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of
equipment simultaneous l Y, which causes hiqh noise
City of Temple City
3
Terraces at Tem ple City
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring to Agency or Initial Date Comments
Occur Frequency Party
levels. . Flexible sound control curtains shall be placed
around all drilling apparatu ses , drill rigs, and
j ackhammers when in use. . The project cont ractor shall use the newest availa ble
power constru ction equipment with standard
recommended no ise shielding and muffling devices . . The local power grid should be used for all feas ible
equipment to lim it generator n oise . No generators
larger than 25 KVA should be u sed and , in cases
where a generator is necessary, it should have a
maximum noise muffling capa ci ty and be opera ted at
t he lowest power setting re q uired to minimize the
resulting no ise. All va riable message /sign boards
shall be solar powered or connected to the local
power grid . . Temporary noise barriers should be made of noise-
re sistant material sufficient to ach ieve a Sound
Transm ission Class (STC) rati ng of STC 30 or
greater, based on sound tra nsmission loss data taken
according to ASTM Test Meth od E90. Su ch a barrier
may provi de as much as a 10 dB insertion loss ,
provided it is positioned as c lose as possibl e to the
noise so u rce or t o the receptors . To be effective, the
barrier must be long and tall enough (we recommend
a standard minimum height of 8 feet) to comp letely
block the line-of-s ight between the nois e source and
the receptors. The gaps between adjacent panels
must be filled-in t o avo id having n oise penetrate
directly through the barrier. . All construction truck traffic sh all be re stricted to truck
routes approved by the City , which shall avoid
residential areas and other sensitive receptors to the
extent feasib le . . Two weeks prior to the comme nce ment of
construction at the Project Site , n otification sha ll be
pro vi ded to the i mmedi ate surrou nd ing off-site
residential , school , and mem orial park properties that
d isclose s the construction schedu le, including th e
va ri ous types of activities and equipment that would
be occurri ng throughout the duration of the
City of Temple City
4
Terraces at Temple City
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring to Agency or Initial Date Comments
Occur Frequency Party
construct ion pen od . . Equ ipment warm-up areas , water tanks , and
equipment storage areas sha ll be loca ted a minimum
of 45 feet from abutting se nsit ive receptors.
Transportationfrraffic
T -1 Northbound Right-Turn Lane at Temple City For T -1 , ve ri ficatio n For T-1 , pl an For T-1, once fo r Temple City
Boulevard/Las Tunas Boulevard . A northbound right that plans have been verification each requ irement Pla nning
turn lane sha ll be implemented on Temple Ci ty Boulevard comp leted and that the before issuance Department
at th e inters ection with Las Tunas Dri ve by restriping th e requ ired improvement of building ForT-1, once so uth leg of t he intersect io n and/or v ia m inor widening of
th e south leg. The curb-to-curb width of Temple City has been implemented perm it and
Boule vard is 64 feet. Restrip ing the lanes to provide two ve ri ficat ion of
11-foot southbound through lanes , one 1 0-foot northbound For T-2, review of final implementation
left-turn lane, two 11 -foot northbound through lanes, and build in g plans to verify before issuance
one 10-foot lane northbound right-tum lane could be compliance of Certificate of
accompl ished with in the exi sting curb-to-curb width . Th is Occupancy
improvement would provide LOS D (V/C 0.885) during t he
P.M. peak ho ur under Cum ulative co nd itio ns . T hi s
For T-2, review mitig at ion wou ld req ui re removal of four parallel parking
spaces on th e wes t side of the street between La s Tuna s of final plans
Drive and the first commercial driveway south of Las before issuance
Tun as Drive . The plans for a northbound right-turn lane on of bui lding
Temp le City Boulevard sha ll be subm itted by the applicant permit
to the City fo r review and app roval prior to issuance of a
bu ilding perm it and construction sh all be completed prior
to the issuan ce of the Certificate of Occupancy.
OR
T-2 Reduced Project Size. The impact ana lysi s
assumed that the 15 ,000 SF of commercial space would
be 7,500 SF of restaurants and 7,500 SF of general reta il
uses . The following m itigation options are requ ired to
redu ce proj ect trip generation by a m in imum of 10%:
. Cha ng ing t he mix to 5 ,000 SF of restaurant and
10 ,000 SF of general reta il uses . Or; . Reduci ng the overa ll commerci al area to 12 ,000 SF
with 6 ,000 SF of restaurant and 6 ,000 SF of general
reta il uses would redu ce the P.M. peak hour tip
City of Temple City
5
Terraces at Temple City
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
When Monitoring Responsible Com :>liance Verification
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring to Agency or Initial Date Comments
Occur Frequency Party
generation by 10% and mitigate the impact. Or; . Reducing the overall project size (reduction in
residential uses and commercial uses) to accomplish
the 10% reduction in traffic.
Re vised site plans shall be submitted to the City for review
and approval illustra ting complia nce with one of the
ootions listed above orior to issuance of a bu ild ina oermit.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
U-1 Wastewater Infrastructure. Prior to final map Verification that Before iss uance Once Temple City
approval the applicant shall submit sewer plans to upgrade plans are of building Planning and
upgrade of the sewerage system as found to be submitted permit Publ ic Works inadequate per the sewer area study prepared by Cal Departments Land Engineering (Segment MH 281 to MH 507 is
inadeauate).
U-2 Performance Bond. Prior to final map the applicant Verification that Before issuance Once Temple City
shall submit a performance bond as determined by the performance bond is of building Plann ing and
City to ensure the upgrade of the sewer main . submitted permit Public Works
Departments
City of Temple City
6
I
Se ptember 13, 2016 Plan ning Commis sio n Meet ing
File: 15 -280
PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION :
Project Background
The i nitia l proposal su bmitted for t h e project wa s a five -story, 123,880 square foot building w ith 15,000
square feet of commercia l space and 75 res id entia l u nits (totaling 108,880 square feet of residential). The
bui l ding height was proposed at 62 feet.
On submittal of t he project, Planning Sta ff expressed concerns reg arding the height and setbacks of th e
structure an d the project's desig n. Additiona l ly, the City reta in ed Rincon Con sultants, Inc., to perform an
environmenta l rev i ew of the project. The environm enta l Initial Stud y (IS) concluded that the project wou ld
resu lt in potent ially sign ificant environmen t al impa cts related to traffic and shade and shadow due to the
size and height of the proj ect. Th e IS provided mi tigati on measures (see Attachment 3, page 20 and page
78) that if implemented would reduce the size and he i ght of the proj ect an d thereby reduce t he impac t s
to a less than sign ificant leve l. In re sp on se , t he app lica nt revise d the project des i gn by:
• Redu cing the build i ng h eig ht fro m f ive to four stories,
• Reducing the number of condominiums from 75 units to 61 units,
• Reduci ng the commercial f l oor area from 15,000 square feet to 7,250 square feet, and
• Increasing the setback of upper floors along the north property line facing Wood ruff Avenue.
The above changes resu lted in a 23 percent reduction in overal l building sq uare footage. Rincon
Consu ltants reviewed the re vise d project and confirm ed that the environmental impacts had b ee n
mitigated to le ss than si gn ificant level w ith the rev i sed design .
On March 21, 201 6, at the req u est of sta ff, the applicant held a community meeting . An i nvita tion was
sent to property ow ners within 500 feet of the site (the same radius requ ired fo r the City's public noticing
requirements). Th e ap pli ca nt introdu ce d the revis ed proj ec t to attendees and answered questions. Some
attendees exp ressed concern reg arding traffi c and privacy. There were al so attend ees wh o exp ressed
support for the project, stating that th e project would en hance the area, phys i ca lly and econo mically.
Project Descr i ption
The project under co nside rat i on is t he rev i sed proje ct w hich propose s th e development of a mi xed-use
bu ilding consi sting of the foll owing:
• 61 res i de nti al condominium units total i ng 87 ,936 square fe et (47 un its pe r acre);
• 7,250 square feet of restaurant/retai l sp ace on the ground floor;
• 198 parking spaces incl ud ing 60 spaces at ground leve l and 138 spaces in t he subte rranean
g ara ge;
• Fou r stories with an overall height of 53 .6 f ee t as meas ured from average grade and one l eve l of
subterranean p arking ; and
• 95 ,186 total squa re f eet (1.67 Fl oo r Ar ea Rat i o).
The commerc i al space, located alo ng Temp le City Boule va rd at the southern portion of the site is inte nd ed
to be u sed by one to fou r resta u rants and/or reta il tenants. The northern portio n of t he grou nd floo r w ill
incl ude fou r, wal k-up resi dentia l units. Two of th e units will f ace Temp le City Boulevard and t wo wil l fa ce
Woo druff Avenue.
Page 3
September 13, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
File: 15-280
that the density range for mixed -use develop ments is between 40 to 70 units per acre, with most projects
having a density around 50 t o 60 units per acre.
The Downtown Specific Plan's purpose statement begins with, "Downtown Temple City is in need of
revitalization." Mixed-use development is commonly used as a tool to assist in revitalizing
downtowns. These developments provide the commercial ground floor presence which is essential to
creating the sense of place and vitality that shoppers desire. At the same time they insert within an
existing community new residents who provide new customers for existing businesses. Another benefit
to m ixed-use housing is that it places residents within walking distance of shopping, restaurants, and jobs
reducing vehicle traffic. Mixed -use development promotes the efficient use of land and infrastructure,
providing a village-style mix of different uses, enhances the economic vitality for the downtown core ,
reduces auto dependency, increases housing opportunities, and creates or promot es the area's unique
identity.
Scale and Appearance
The perceived scale of a project can be affected by the building height, the exterior design and treatment,
and the building setbacks.
Height: The Downtown Specific Plan states t h at the height l imit for a building is 45 feet, with the
exception that a mixed-use bui lding can be approved up to 55 feet by t he Plann i ng Commission. This
project proposes a building height of 53.5 feet.
Setbacks: The Downtown Specifi c Plan requires a mixed-use building to provide a five-foot setback for
the upper floors on a street elevation. No setback is required for a non-street side or for the rear if not
directly abutting a residential district. Thi s project exceeds these requi rements. The setback proposed for
the upper floors on Temp le City Bouleva rd is nine feet. The setback provided for the upper floors on
Woodruff Avenue is 32.5 feet. Th e larger setback on Woodruff Avenue provides a generous separation
for the neighboring residences to the north and eliminates potential shade and shadow impacts on the
residential properties. The 32.5 -foot set back, if combined with the street right-of-way for Woodruff
Avenue (60 feet) and the front yard for t hose re side nces (generally 20 feet), will re sult in a distance of
112.5 feet from the upper stories of the proposed project to the nearest residentia l building to the north.
The typical building separation between two R-3 multi -family developments wou ld be 20 feet (ten feet
on each side).
Exterior Design and Treatment: The exterior design for the project provides a we ll articulated structure
on all four sides. The strategy of using balconies and varied stucco colors along with the change in the
texture, has the effect of reducing the verticality of the massing. On the street level, the commercia l floor
area is proposed to have a cei ling of 15 feet which, in combination with the 20-foot wall plane, will
constitute a visually strong base, a desired featu re for a multip le-story building.
To achieve a high quality design, staff has incorporated a number of cond itions to require that the
building design be revised to establish a clear architectural style , and high quality materials be used for
the project. The discussion for this requi rement is provided in greater detail under "Design Quality".
Page 6
September 13, 20 16 Planning Commission Meeting
File: 15-280
Land Use : Since its adoption in 2002, the Downtown Specific Plan has designated mixed-use
development as a con ditionall y permitted land u se for all its districts. This project is l ocated in the Temple
City Boulevard District. The site is close to Temple City Boulevard/Las Tu nas Drive intersection w here
public transportation is available. Transit stops on both streets are within walking distance. The land use
around the site presents a h igh-density area with commercial properties on the sou th and east, and "high-
density residential" (as defi ned by the City's General Plan) properties to the north and west.
The site design for the project indicates the consideration of separating the commercial use from the
residential use. The comme rc ial use will be on the ground floor and clustered at the southern portion of
the site closer to the adj acent commercial uses. The northern portion of the ground floor will be used for
four walk -up residential units. The add itiona l 57 residential units wil l be l ocated on the second f loor
through the fourth floor. Placing residences, i nstead of comme rcial u ses, on the northern portion of the
ground floor wi ll provide a better interface wi th the residential commun ity to the north.
The appl i cant proposes that the entire commercial space be available for restaurants or retail and tha t
the space be able to acco mmodate up to fou r tenants. Staff has incorporated a condition of approva l
(conditi on number seven) allowing up to four commercia l units. Staff has prepared fi ndings and included
conditions of approval to approve the future restaurant uses as long as alcohol wi ll not be served and the
restaurants hours of operation are limited to 7:00a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Restaurants wa nting to serve alcohol
or operate outsid e the set h ours wou ld need to apply for a sepa rate conditiona l use permit.
De si gn Quality
The Design Guidelines of the Downtown Spec ific Plan promote high qua lity developments. The Guidelines
contain a section for gene ra l principles and a section for each district. The general principles provide a
comprehensive summary fo r the site planning and site-wide building design which includes parking,
circulation, landscaping, massing, scale, co lor, li ghting, and signs. The section for each district provides
specific guidelines for the d etails of th e building design. Th i s sec tion also recommends that the architect
conside r an architectura l style for the design of a new build in g.
The design quality requ irement is reiterated in the development standards for mixed-use developments.
The requirement calls for an "exceptional design" if the applicant i s seeking a floor area ratio greater than
the R-3 zone, (0.7) which is the case for this project. To approve a project where this occurs the applicant
must provide a design quality exceptional to other projects in the area .
To ensure that the project is of a quality design, t he City retained RRM Design Group (RRM) to review the
project. RRM concluded that t he p roj ect "meets the basic design guideline principles such as a genera ll y
articulated mass, prominent driveways, and screened parking lot..." However, RRM pointed out that the
project "lacks the more artic ulated character and style defining elements such as a richness of materia l s,
multi-planed roofs, and overhang s", and the "pro posed project's mass and scale is in conflict with the
Temple City Commercial D istrict Guidelines." RRM recommends six strategies to improve the project's
design (see attachment 4 for the RRM rev iew comments).
Page 7
September 13, 2016 Plann ing Commiss ion Meeting
File : 15-280
It shou ld be noted that the design reviewe d by RRM was the original five-story project The revised design
(current project) featu res a reduced bu i ld i ng height , a larger se tback for the upper floors on the north,
additional des ign eleme nts, and a palette of multipl e stucco col ors. Staff believes t hat the revised desig n
has accompl ished th e goa l of having a re du ced mass and scale . Th e relationship of the project with t h e
surrounding development i s also improved. Yet, the rev i sed design has not adequately addressed two
issues:
• Establishing an arc hi tectural style for the building and
• Using a richness of materials on pedestrian street leve l.
Staff therefore recommend s a number of conditions to cove r these areas. Condition number three
requ i res that the des i gner submit a revised d esign, giving the bui lding a clear and definable architectu ral
style. Condition number four requires th e proj ec t to use varied roof planes or elements appropriate to
the chosen style, not to exceed a maximum of 55 feet. Condi ti o ns number five an d six are to ensure that
City staff review and approve the materials t hat will be used on the building. With those conditions of
approval in place, staff believes that the project would be of a hi gh q uality design.
Onsite Parking
Accord in g to the sta ndards provided by t he Downtown Specific Plan, the ons ite p arking require d for a
mixed-u se project i s at a ratio of two-and-h alf spac es per residenti al unit, and a rati o of one space p er
250 sq uare f eet for the commercial floor area. Ba sed on suc h sta n dards, the total number of parki ng
spaces requ ired for the project wou ld be 182 spaces. The project proposes to provide 198 spaces for auto
parking and 40 racks for bic ycle parking. The Downtown Spec i fic Pl an allows the b icycle parking spaces
to be credited as five auto parking spaces; with that credit the tota l provided parking is 203 parking
spaces.
Th e Specific Plan has a prov1s1on all owi ng a mi xed -use project to use res id ential guest parking for
co mmercial parking as long as a parking study is prepared to demonstrate that t he onsite parking wou ld
be ad eq u ate to accom modate the demand. Th e applicant proposes to make use of this provision for t he
project.
The applicant proposes to designate the entire commercial floor area for restaurant s. A parking study
complet ed for the project concluded that t h e peak demand for parking would be on the weekends at
noon and determined a specific parking rate for restaurant customers and employees, condomin i um
guests, and retail custome rs and employees at that time. Based on these parking rates, the project wou l d
not be able to accom modate 7,250 square f eet of restaurant space; it would be able to accommodate
5,25 0 square feet of restaurant and 2,000 sq u are fe et of retail or general office. Detail s of the calculat io n
are provided as the followi ng:
Pag e 8
September 13, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
File: 15-280
Table 1: Commercial and Guest Parking
'
Park ing Supply
Auto Parking
Bicycle Parking Credit
Total Parkinq Supp ly
Parking Demand
Condo Guest Parking
Restaurant Customer Parking
Restaurant Employee Parking
Retail Customer Parkinq
Retail Employee Parkinq
Total Parking Demand
Total Surplus/Deficit
Scenario 2
Scenario 1 5,250 sq. ft. Restaurant &
7,250 sq . ft. Restaurant 2,000 sq . ft. Retai l/Office
76 spaces 76 spaces
5 spaces 5 spaces
81 81
2 spaces 2 spaces
83 spaces 60 spaces
16 sp aces 12 spaces
0 spaces 5 spaces
0 spaces 2 spaces
101 spaces 81 spaces
-20 spaces 0 spaces
Staff recommends cond ition of approva l seven wh ich would lim it the amount of re sta urant space and
retail space to the above proportions. The condition also provides the applicant the flexibility of
increasi ng or decreasing the proportion of each u se as long as the change s do not result in a parking
deficit.
Environmental Review
An Initia l Study (IS) in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) was prepared by Rincon Consu ltants, a professiona l environmental consultin g firm specializ ing in
CEQA documentation and complian ce . The I S i s included as Attachment 3. The I S assessed the sho rt-
term, long -term and cumulative environmental impacts that could result from the proposed project. The
I S concluded that the project would not have a significant envi ronm ental impact with the incorpo ration
of the specified mitigati on m easures, including the changes to t h e design th at are reflec ted in the revised
project proposal. A Miti ga t ed N egative Declarat i on has been prepared accordingly pursuant to CEQA.
The following discussion is a summary of environmental factors that have been identified by the
environmental IS that will have a potenti al of caus i ng sig nifi ca nt impacts unless mitigated. The IS has
recommended mitigation measures for each factor and determi ned that all impacts would be reduced to
less than significant if the mitigation meas ure s are implemented. Staff has incorporated conditions of
approva l reflecting the mitigation measures. More information and greater details can be found in the
Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Decl aration (Attachment 3).
Aesthetics
The IS identi fied a potenti ally sig nifican t impact the origi n al project would have on adjacent residential
uses, whi ch are co nsidered shadow sensitive use s. Shadow impacts are co nsi dered significant if light-
Page 9
September 13, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
File: 15-280
sensi tive uses would be shaded by the project for more than three hours between late October and early
April between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. The original project cast a shadow over the multi-
fami ly resid ences located immediately north of th e project for over three hours creating a potentially
significant impact (page 17, Figure Sb of the Draft Initial Study-Attachment 3). The applicant revised
the project to meet the requirements of mitigation measure AES-1 (page 20 of the Draft Initial Study-
Attachment 3). Rincon Consu ltants reviewed the revis ed project and has determined that the project will
no longer create a potent i ally sig nificant impact.
Air Quality
The project construction could generate temporary air pollutant emissions. The IS identified fugitive dust,
exhaust from heavy vehicles, and reactive organic gases from architectural coat ing during the drying
phase as the major contribu tors. Five measures are recommended f or minimizing the impacts. They are
contained in conditions number 13 to 17. With the mitigation measures in place, the short-term impacts
would be less than significant.
Long-term emissions associated w ith project operation, such as the vehicle trips, natura l gas use,
landscape maintenance equipment, etc. have al so been analyzed. The IS concluded th at the project would
not generate emissions exceeding the threshold of Southern California Air Quality Management District,
and therefore the impacts would be less t han significant.
Geology and Soil Condition
The IS identified the site as not within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone or a mapped
liquefaction area. However, due to the potential of ground shaking on a regional scale, the project is
required to implement all the measures recommended in the Report of Geotechn ica l Engineering
Investigation. The project construction is also subject to all applicable standards contained in the
California Building Code to ensure the structural integrity.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
To assess whether or not the site contains hazardou s chemica ls, Partn er Engineering conducted Phase I
and Phase ll En vironmental Site Assessments. The Phase ll assessment, which investigated the subsurface
of the site, came to the conclusion that the level of perchloroethylene (PCE), and trichlo roethylene (TCE),
two industrial so lvents, had exceeded the screen ing l evels. Exceeding the screening leve l means that there
is a potential for a vapor intrusion. Cond ition of approval 19 is recommended for the project which
requires the applicant to prepare a Human Health Risk Assessment prior to building permit issuance to
evaluate the potential for vapor intru sion of known soil gas contaminants, TCE and PCE , into the project. If
the potential leve ls of va por intrusion would exceed standards, the applicant will be required develop a
remedia l action plan to reduce contaminants to below l eve l s of regulatory concern.
Noise
The IS provided a thorough explanation on the mechanism of measu ring noise. Basically, the noise level
perceived by human beings is dependent on a number of factors such as the inten sity and vibratio n of
the noise, the distance from the source, the level of ambient noise, and the attenuation effect of any noise
barrier between the source and the receiver. The IS surveyed the existing noise le vel in the area and
projected the noise leve l caused by the project. Based on the state regulatory guidelines and Temple City
Page 10
September 13, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
File: 15-280
Noise standards, the IS concluded that the project would not have an effect of increasing the noise to a
sign ificant le vel. Noise associated with the construction activi ties would be temporary which ca n be
properly mitigated throug h implementing noise redu ction measures. Nine noise reduction measures are
recommended (as contained in conditions number 21 through condition number 29). The nine measures
are summarized as the following:
• Noise and ground vibration act ivities should be conducted as far as possible from the nearby
resident ia l properties;
• Avoid operating several pieces of equ ipment simultaneous ly;
• Flexible sound control curtains are requi red for drilling apparatuses, etc.;
• Use the newest available equipment;
• Limit the use of generators;
• Noise barriers sho uld be made of noise resistant material;
• Construction truck traffic routes sha ll be approved by the City;
• Provide notification to the neighbors two weeks prior to construction; and
• Equipm ent warm-up areas and the like shal l be loca ted 45 feet from the abutting sensitive
receptors.
Traffic and Circulation
In the earlier stage of the proj ect review, a traffic and circulation study was conducted based on the
origina l proposa l fo r the project (a fi ve-sto ry, mixed -use building w it h 15,000 squa re feet of commerc ial
space and 75 residential units). The traffic study and circulat ion study analyzed eight intersections. The
study found that the project would generate 1,466 net daily trips, with 120 net trips in the morning peak
hour and 120 net trips in the evening peak hour. Th e traffic and circulation study indicated that the traffic
impact on Temple City Boulevard/Las Tunas Drive intersection during the p.m. peak hours (4:00 p.m. to
6:00 p.m.) would be potentially significant unless mitigated. The study recommended that the project use
one of the two measures for a mitigation: create a northbound right -turn lane at Temple City
Boulevard/Las Tunas Drive intersection on Temple City Boulevard; or reduce the overall size of the project
by a minimum of 10 percent. The app licant ha s since revised the project. The revised project, in
comparison with the origin al scope of work, is found to have fulfilled the required mitigation. The
reduction of commercial floor area is approximately 52 percent, and the reduction on the number of
residential units is 19 percent, all of which exceed the requ ired 10 percent threshold of the mitigation
measu re. With this reduct ion, the p roject wil l not re sul t in any significant traffic impact.
The site plan was also reviewed by the City's Tr affic Engineer. The City's Traffic Engineer recommended
two conditions of approval. Condition number 30 requires that the applicant prepare a traffic calming
plan for the alley way. Condition number 31 requi res that the applicant prepare a detailed pedest ri an
access/c i rculation plan. Both plans are subject to the review and approval by the City before bui lding
perm its.
FINDINGS:
The findings required in Section 9-1F -ll of the Temple City Municipal Code for a conditional use permit,
findings required in Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act for a tentative map, findings required in
Sect ion 9 -1E-2 of the Temple City Municipa l Code for a Major Site Plan Review, and findings required in
Page 11
Septemb er 13, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
File: 15 -280
Section m, Mixed Use of the Downtown Specific Plan to approve the Floor Area Ratio and other
development standards proposed by the project are contained in the attached resolution (Attachment 1).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW :
A Mitigated Negative Declaration and En viro nmental Initial Study prepared by an independent third party
environmental consu ltant are attached (Attachm ent 3). Staff has reviewed and eva lu ated the project and
the project's environmenta l impacts. Environ m enta l Initia l Study has identified the following areas to be
mitigated:
• Aesthetics
• Geology/Soi l s
• Ha zards and Hazardous Materials
• Noise
• Transportation/Traffic
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached reso lution recommending that the City Co unci l adopt t he Mitigated Negative
Declaration and approve File No. 15 -280 subj ect to the recommended conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution and Exhibits
2. Project Developme nt Pl ans
3. Initial Study and Miti gated Negative Declaration
4. RRM De sign Review Comments
5. Parking Study
Page 12
Resolution No. 16-_ PC
File No. PL 15 -280
5935 Temple City Bou leva rd
Page 2 of 10
identified the areas of p ote ntia l significance and recommended mitigation
measures to implement.
3. I n response to the MND, on March 19, 2016, the appl icant sub mitted a revised
project. The revised project reduced the scale of the construction from a five-story
to a four-story building, and reduced the comme rc ial f loor area f rom 15,000 square
fe et t o a floor area of approxi mate ly 7,25 0 square feet. The number of
condom i niu m units was also reduce f rom 75 units to 61 un its.
4. On August 25, 2016, the City pub li shed the Mitigated Negative Declaration f or
public comments.
5. On Septem be r 1 3, 2016, the Pl annin g Commissio n held a public hearing to consider
the project.
6 . Notice of the Planning Commission public hearin g was posted at the Counc il
Chambers.
7 . Notice o f t he Planning Co mmiss io n pub li c hearing was pub li shed in a newspaper
of genera l circu lation at leas t t e n days prior to t he hearing .
8. Notice of t he Plann ing Commiss i on public hearing was mailed to property owners
within 500 feet of the property at least ten days prior to the hear ing.
9. Notice of the pu b lic hear in g sa ti sfied the notic in g requirements set fort h 1n
Governme nt Code Sections 65090 and 65091.
10. Th e project site i s in t he TC (Temple City Boulevard Commercial) Zone.
11 . The project site i s designated Commercial by the General Plan.
SECTION 3. Based on th e public hear ing for File PL 15-280 and pursua nt to the req uired
findings for a cond iti onal use permit, the Planning Commission makes the follow ing
findings:
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size, shape, topography and
circumstances;
The site i s 325 f eet long and 175 feet deep, contai ning a land area of approximately
56,875 sq uare feet (1.3 acres). I t is a rectangular-shaped site with a flat topography.
The propose d project, a deve lopment of a four-story building w ith a one -level
Res olutio n No. 16-_ PC
File No. Pl15-280
59 35 Templ e City Boul eva rd
Pa ge 3 of 10
underground pa r king ga rage, can be adequately accommodated by the size, the
dimension, and the t opography of the site. The proposed onsite park in g is
adequate and t he envi ronment al review has co nclud ed that w it h the mitigation
measures the project wi ll not resu lt in a signif icant impact. The proposed use of
the commerc ial space for resta urants has been analyzed ba sed on the result of a
parking study. St aff has come to the conclusion that the onsite parking would be
adequate if the total floor area used for restaura nts is l i mited to 5,250 square feet.
Staff also recommends conditions of approval, limiting the hours of operat ion fo r
any f uture restaurants to between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. No serving al coho li c
beverages wou ld be allowed un less a ne w conditio na l perm it is acquired, wh ic h is
subject to a separate pub li c hearing. With the co nd itions of approva l in place, staff
conc l udes that th e project meet s the finding .
2. That the site has sufficient access to streets and highways, adequat e in width
and pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of t raffic generat ed by
t he proposed use; and
The site can be accessed th ro ug h two pub li c streets a nd an alley way. Th e publi c
st reet on the east (Temple City Boulevard) is a pri mary road in the area which has
a r ight-of-way of 80 feet and a roadway of 64 feet. The public street on t he north
(Wood r uff Avenue) is a loca l road which has a right-of-way of 60 feet and a
roadway of 36 feet. Th e all ey on the west is a standard 20 -foot roadway. The project
ha s been res ized to mitigate the i mpact identified by the traffic st udy comp l eted
for the project. With the m itigation measures and the conditions of approval
requiring a traffic ca lmin g p lan fo r t he alley way, the project will have a less t ha n
sign ificant impact and is determin ed t o meet this fi nding.
3. That the proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon the use,
enjoyment or valuation of adjacent or neighboring properties or upon the
public welfare.
The proposed mi xed -use is permitted in the Temple City Commercial Zone as
desig nat ed by the City's Zo ning Code and Genera l Plan. Th e site is surrounde d by
commercial properties as we ll as high -den sity residentia l uses. No single -fam ily
residentia l zo ne i s located in the i mmediate proxi mity. Th e sc ale of the project has
b ee n res ized to mitigate the pote ntial impacts ide nti fied by the Mitigated Negative
Declaration; the project desig n i s found to have a h igh level of compatib ility w ith
the surround in g land u ses ; and conditions of approval w ill be imposed on the
proj ect to address iss ues pertaining t o t he co nstru ction activiti es and t he use of
restau ra nts fo r the co mmerci al floo r area. W it h th e d et erm i na tion that t he p roj ect
Resolut ion No. 16-_ PC
File No. PL 15-280
5935 Temple City Boul eva rd
Page 4 of 10
will not result in any significant impact, staff concludes that the project meets this
finding.
SECTION 4. Based on the public hearing for File PL 15-280 and pu rsuant to the required
findings for a tentative map, the Planning Commission must deny the project if it can make
any of t he fo ll owi ng fin d in gs of Sec t ion 66474 of t he Su b division Map Act:
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans;
The proposed map is consistent with the designation of the Zoning Code and the
General Plan. The site is in the Temple City Boulevard Commercial District where a
mi xe d -use development is specifically allowed through the approval of a
conditiona l use permit. 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;
The improvement of the proposed subdivision will be consistent wi th applicab l e
genera l and specific plans. The i mprovement will be a four-story, mixed -use
development. Reviews of the proje ct de sig n have been concluded with the
determination t hat the project wil l satisfy all deve lopment standards prescribed by
the City's Downtown Specific Plan. In addition, the subject site is in an area w hich
has been ide ntified by the City's 2050 General Plan as a mi xed-use zone. The
identification is based on the vision that mixed-use developments will help the
revitalization of the downtown commercial core . Therefore, the p roject does not
meet this f in ding .
3 . That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development;
The site is p hysica lly suitable for th e proposed development as the site ha s a flat
topography with a land area large enough to accommodate the sca l e of the
developme nt. Off-street parking standards w ill be satisfi ed through constructing
an underground parking garage and a parking lot on the ground level. The total
parking spaces meet the zoning re quirement. Therefore, the project does not meet
thi s finding.
Resolution No. 16-_ PC
File No. PL 15 -280
5935 Temple City Boulevard
Page 5 of 10
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development;
I n accordance with the Downtown Specific Plan, the City Council can approve a
density for a m ixed-use project if fo und to be appropriate. The proposed dens ity
of 47 units per acre is found to be appropriate based on the lot size and the
project's co mp l ianc e with a ll app licabl e development standards. The scale of the
project has been downsized to address the issues identified by the environmental
document, and a conclu sion has been made that the project wil l not result in any
signi fic ant impact. Therefore, the project 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 subdivision has been rev ie wed and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared for the project. Potential significant impacts relating
to aest hetics and traffic have been mitigated an d conditions of approval wi ll be
imposed on the project to minimize construction impact. The site is located in a
fully urban ized region , whereby there is no potential for the project to cause
environmenta l damage or to injure fish or wildlife. There are no existing
environmenta l co nd itions or wildl ife that cou ld potentially be harmed by the
project. There fore, the project does not meet th is fi nd in g.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems; and
Th e design of the subdivi sion features a four-story, mixed -use building which is
not l ike ly to cause serious public health problems. The Mitigated Negative
Declaration ha s identified all potentials of impact as related to public health such
as the air quality, noise, and const ru ction activities. Measures recommended by the
Mitigated Negative Declaration have been made to the conditions of approval to
minimize the imp act. Therefore, the proj ect 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 sh all apply only to
Reso lution No. 16-PC
File No. PL 15-280
5935 Temple City Bo uleva rd
Page 6 of 10
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 acquired easements for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
The tentative ma p has been revie wed by the City's Engi nee ring Division. Any
conflict w it h the public easeme nts caused by the design and the improvement have
been identified or addressed th rough the cond itions of approva l. Future easement
dedication afte r the approval of t h e t entative map is required to be rev iewed by
t he City Engineer, a nd if ap pli ca ble, to be sub o rdin ated to the public easeme nt(s ).
Th erefore, the proj ect does not me et this fin ding.
SECTION 5. Base d o n the public hearing for File PL 15-280 and pursuant to the required
find i ngs for a Site Plan Review, the Pla nn i ng Commission makes the followi ng f indings:
1. The construction complies with all applicable provisions of this Zoning Code.
The development plans have been reviewed under the deve lopment stan da rds of
the Downtown Specific Plan and the Zon in g Code. The p roject design is fou nd to
be consistent w ith al l ap pl ica b le sta nd ards. Off-street parking spaces (provided i n
a subterra ne an g arage and on the g round leve l) meet the Zonin g Code Standards.
The setbac ks of the upper fl o ors, the build ing heig ht, and the open space also
comply or exceed the Downtown Specific Pla n spec ificati o ns. Ther efore, the project
meets this fi nding .
2 . The co nstruction is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific
plan, and an y special design theme adopted by the City for the site and
vici nity.
The construction of a mi xed -u se project is co nsistent with th e Commerc ial
desig nation for the property by the General Plan . Th e Do w ntown Specific Plan also
specifi es that a mi xed-use project l ocated in the specific plan area can be ap proved
through a cond itiona l use perm it. To ensure that the project wi ll be of a quality
des ign, the City ha s re tained a consultant to re vie w the architectural plans. The
project in co nsid e ration is a revised design in response t o the design review
comments. Staff a lso recomme n ds a number of conditions fo r the purpose of
ensuring hig h quality materials and estab li sh ing an arc hitectural sty l e for t he
project. Therefore, the project meets this finding.
---~ -----
Resolution No. 16-_ PC
File No. PL 15-280
5935 Temple City Bou levard
Page 7 of 10
3. The approval of the site plan review is in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The approval of the site pla n re v iew is in compliance w ith CEQA because the initial
study has b een comp leted and a M itigated Negative Decl aration has bee n
prepared for the project. The sca le of the develo pment has been re duced to
mitigate t he p otentially sign ifi cant impacts. After rev iewing the revised proj ec t
design, staff ha s concluded that t he project wi ll not result i n any significant impact.
Therefore, t he proj ect meets th i s find i ng.
4. The proposed structures, signs, site development, grading and/or
landscaping are compatible in design, appearance and scale, with existing
uses, development, signs, structures, and landscaping for the surrounding
area.
A conceptual l andscaping p lan has bee n subm itted fo r t he proje ct. Before t h e
issuance of a buildi ng perm it, a d et ailed landscaping p lan w ill be su bmitted for
review and approval. The g radi ng p la n w ill be reviewed by t he City's Engineer ing
Division based on the criteria th at the proj ect will ma inta in the exis tin g grade to
the exte nt fe asibl e. A sig n p rogram w i l l be required fo r the proj ect to ensure t h e
consistency of th e business sig ns on the site. The project's proposal of provid ing
la rger tha n re qui red setbacks for t he upper leve ls, an d p laci ng some reside nt ial
units on t he ground level w ill hav e the effect of enhan c ing its compatibility w ith
the adj ace nt re sidential neighborhoods. Therefore, the project me et s th is fi nd i ngs.
5. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed
structures, yards, walls, fences, parking, landscaping, and other development
features.
Th e si t e is 325 f eet lo ng and 175 feet deep, co ntaining a la nd area of app rox imate ly
56 ,8 75 sq uare feet (1.3 acres ). Th e proposed p roj ect, a mi xe d -use building with
four leve ls above the ground and one leve l subterran ean, ca n be ade quately
accommodated by the dime nsi ons and the size of the l ot. Adequate off-street
pa r kin g w ill be prov i ded acco rding the zo n ing sta nd ard s. Circulation design for the
parkin g lots ha s been reviewed by the City's Engineering Division. Pedes tri an
accesses w ill be provi ded at t he locati ons recommended by the City to en ha nce
pedestrian path co nne ctivity. Th er efore, the proj ect meets the fin di ng .
Re solution No. 16-_ PC
File No. PL 15 -28 0
59 35 Temple City Boul evard
Page 8 of 10
SECTION 6. Based on t he public hearing for File PL 15-280 and pursuant to the
requi r ed fi ndi ngs for the p roposed 1.67 Floor Area Ratio, the Planning Commission
finds:
1. The project is consistent with t he goals and o bject ives of the D ow nt own
Sp ecific Plan and the Temple City Gene ral Plan .
The general goal of the Downtown Specific Plan calls for a "high qual ity an d d istinct
image and a functional, vibrant and aesthetically pleasing dow ntown for Temple
City". The Vision Statement of the City's 2050 General Plan states t hat a vita l
economy i s one of the major goals f o r t he community to achieve in t he future. Thi s
project is cons i stent with the goals of both the Downtown Specific Plan and the
Temple City General Plan, as providing housing opportunities close to commerc ial
uses wi ll produce pedestrian t raffic and p romote bus i ness activi t i es for t he area.
Therefore, the project meets this findi ng.
2. The project does not adversely affect neighboring resi d e ntial and co m mercial
properties.
The property i s zoned for m ixed -use developments and is sur rounded by a mi x of
commerci al properties and hi gh -den sity residen t ial uses. No single -family
residen tial zo ne i s located in the immediate prox i m ity. The scale of the project has
been resized to mitigate any potential impacts identified by the M iti gated Negative
Declaration. Conditions of approval will be im po sed on the project to address
temporary impacts caused by co nstruction act iv iti es. Therefore, the project meets
th i s findi ng.
3. The project will provide desired community amenities and increase the mix
of commercial/retail uses in the downtown.
The project proposes a plaza as an entrance to the building as we ll as an amenity
for the street. Th e pla za will be on Temple City Boulevard and w ill be improved
with a fountain and decorative p aving as we ll as landscaping. Given the uniformed
look of t he street sid ewalk which is genera l conc ret e paving, a pl aza is a desired
open space to encourage loca l pedestrian traffic. The 61 re sident ial units also have
the effect of increa sing the res id ential/commercia l ratio for the downtow n area.
With reside nti al units constru ct ed in the same area , busine ss opportunity for
commercial/reta il in the downtown area will be i ncreased. Therefore, the project
meets this f i nding.
Resolution No. 16-_ PC
File No. PL 15 -280
5935 Temple City Boulevard
Page 9 of 10
4. The project is designed to enhance the surrounding neighborhood, provide
an exceptional high-quality architectural design, and promote pedestrian
activity by providing pedestrian oriented design elements and features.
With the goa l of ensuring a high quality design, the City retained RRM Group to
review the project for the arc hitectural character and mass in g design. After
receiving comments, the app lican t revised the project des i gn in order to address
the issues identi fied by RRM Design Group. Staff also has recommendations for
the project wh ich have been in corporated in the conditions of approval. The
recomme ndations will ensure that the building will acqu i re a defi ned architectura l
style, use various and high quality materials, and enhance the elements for a
pedestrian oriented design. With such conditio ns i n place, the project will satisfy
this finding.
5. The project will help the City meet its share of regional housing need and
related housing goals.
Th e project wi l l he lp the City to narrow t he gap between the existing housing
inventory and the projected housing need. According to t he 2014-2021 Housing
Element of t he General Plan, The Regional Housing Needs Assessment of SCAG
has allocated 603 new housing units for the City, among which 351 units shou ld
be for moderate-income and above -moderate-income families. Under such a
background, the construct ion of this project w i ll help accomplish approximately
ten percent of the total of the allocated new housing units required by the State,
therefore, the project meets this finding.
SECTION 7. Based upon th e Initial Study, a Mitigated Neg ative Declaration was prepared
for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The project
has been revised according to the miti gation measures, and the determ ination is made
that the project wi ll no t resu lt in any signifi cant impact on the environment.
SECTION 8. Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve File No. PL 15 -280, a request for a
conditional use permit a tentative tract map, and a major site plan review for the
construction of the mi xed-use project, subject to the applicant complying with al l
requi reme nts of the Te m ple City Mun ici pal Code and the conditions as set forth in Exhib its
A through C to this resolution.
Resolution No. 16-_ PC
File No. PL 15-280
5935 Temple City Bouleva rd
Page 10 of 10
SECTION 9. The Secre t ary shall certify to t he adoption of t hi s Resolu ti on .
EXHIBITS
A. Pl ann ing Division Conditions of Approva l
B. Building Division Conditions of Approval
C. Engineerin g and Publ ic Works Division Conditions of Approval
D. L.A. County Fire Department Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Chair
City Attorney
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temp le City at a meeting held on the 13th of September, 2016,
by t h e followin g vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABS TAIN:
Commiss ioner-
Commissioner-
Comm is sioner-
Comm issioner-
Secretary
File No. PL 15-280
5935 Templ e City Boulevard
5. Prior to building plan check, t he appl icant shall submit a comple ted list and
spec ifications for t he ex t er ior materia ls to the Community Development
Departm ent for revi ew and approval. The sub mitta l shall inclu de, but is not
li mited to:
a. Wi ndow type and materials;
b. Design and t he ma te rial f or the founta i n i n th e courtyard;
c. Spec ifi cation for the moldings, cornices, and other decorative elemen ts;
d. Specifications for t he sco re l i nes;
e. Spec ifi cations for the stone veneer;
f. Specifications for t he wrought iron works on the bui lding exterior;
g. Spec ifications for the ground leve l canopies;
h. Specifications for the trellises of the res idential units; and
1. Specificat io n for the exterior lighting and lighting f ixtu res.
6. Prior to the issuance of the building permits for the project, the applicant
shall submit a deta iled landscaping p la n to the Community Development
Department. The deta il ed land scaping plan shall incl ude, in addition to th e
spec ificat ion of p lants, t he foll owing info r mation, subject to the review and
satisfact ion of t he Community Develop ment Department Directo r:
a. The color, design and type of pav in g fo r the centra l garden on the
second flo or;
b. The color, d es ign, and type of p av ing fo r t he ground level plaza;
c. The color, de sign, and type of paving for the second f loor deck on t he
north side of the building; and
d. Demonstration that the p roj ect has incorporated a mi xt ure of high
qual ity paving as an alternative to un st ained concrete including a
mixture of wood (or fau x wood) deck, til e, and paving sto nes.
7. Occupancy of the commercial floor area: the allocation of co mm ercia l space
between restaurant and retai l uses sha ll not create a parking demand
greater than the parking supply as determ in ed by the pa rking demand rates
and peak dem and period provi d ed for in the parking stud y. In general the
project may provide up to 5,250 square feet of restaurant spa ce and 2,000
square feet of retail space . Any modifications to this allocation of space
sha ll be acco mpani ed with a par king tabl e based on the rates in the
attac hed parking st ud y. No sepa rate co nditi ona l use perm it is required if a
restaurant wi ll ope rat e betw een 7:0 0 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., no alcoho l ic
beverages i s serve d, and/or li ve enterta i nme nt is bei ng proposed. Each
co mmercial units shall have a minimum floor area of 1,000 square fee t.
Page 2 of 8
Fi le No. PL 15 -280
5935 Temple City Bo u levard
8. Separa t e conditional use permit requ i red: a restaurant proposing to have an
extended hours of operation beyond the 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p .m. schedule,
a n d/or serving alcoho li c beverages as part of the service is required to app ly
for a separate conditi onal use permit. Any other uses designated as required
a condi ti onal use permit per the Downtown Specific Plan shall obtain a
se para te condi ti onal use permit before opening.
9. All res t aurants are re qu i red to install a survei ll ance system, p rov ide
adeq uate pest control, and waste collecti on services . A 30-day recording
from t he surveillance sys t em should be maintained.
10. A. Parking & Loading: No commercial d elivery/loading activities shal l be
conducted at the curbs ide of Temple City Boulevard and/or Woodruff
Avenue.
B. Parking for Condom i nium Guests an d Customers: t he project shall have
signs demonstrating additi onal customer parking in th e subterrane an
pa r king garage. Condominium guest and commercial parking i n the
base ment sha ll have sign s p ro h ibi tin g res identia l te nant parking . Signs shall
be insta ll ed prior to a ce rti ficate of comp l ete d construction or temporary
certif icate of occupancy being granted.
11. The project shall be subj ect to all app l icable provisions of the City's Water
Effi cie nt Landscaping Ordinance.
Conditions Pertaining to the Mitigation Measures
12 . The project shall be subject to all applicable provisions of the City's Low
Impact Deve l opment Standards .
13. D uri ng th e site preparation and g radin g phases, the const r uctio n
contrac t ors should minimize the area dis tu rbed by clearing , grading, ea rth
movi ng, or excavatio n operations to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
14. During the site preparation and g rading phases, the construction
contractors should trea t all graded and excavated material, exposed soil
areas, and active portions o f the construction si t e, inc lu ding unpaved on -
site roadways to minimize fugitive dust. Treatm ent shall i nclude, but not
n ecessarily be limited to, periodic wate ring, applicatio n o f environmentally
safe soi l stabilization materi als, and/or roll compaction as appropriate.
Page 3 of 8
File No. PL 15-28 0
5935 Temple City Boulevard
Watering shall be done as often as necessary, and at least twice daily,
preferab ly i n the late morning and after w o rk is done for th e day.
15. During the site preparat ion and g radi ng phases, t he constructi on
co ntrac tors sho uld mon itor all graded an d/or excavated inactive areas of
the construction site at lea st week ly for dust stabi li zat i on. Soil stab ili zat ion
methods, such as wa t er and roll compactio n, and environmentally safe dust
control materials, sha l l be ap p l ied to po rt ion s of t he co nstruction site that
are inactive fo r over fo ur days. If no further grading or excavatio n operations
are p lanned for the are a, the area shall be seeded and watered unti l
landscape growth is evident, o r per iodical ly treated wit h environment ally
safe dust suppressants, to prevent excess ive f ugitive dust.
16. During con structio n, t h e con structi on con tractors should st op al l clearing,
grading, earth moving, and excavation operations during periods of high
·w ind s (20 miles per hour or greater, as mea su red cont i nuous ly over a one-
hour period).
17. Du rin g construction , the con stru ct i on con tra ctors sh ou ld sweep all on-site
driveways and adjacen t streets and roads at least once pe r day, preferab ly
at the end of t he day, if v isib l e so il m ater ia l is carried over to adj acent streets
and roa ds.
18. Du r ing gra din g, excava ti o n, and the construction, the project shall
implement the recomme nd ati ons made in t he Report of Geotechnical
Engin ee rin g Invest igation in cluding, but is not limited to, t he remova l of
surfic i al so il s, treatment of r emova l bottoms, structura l backf il l, foundation
des ign, f oundation co nstru ction, concrete slab s, retaining wa ll drainage, and
temporary excavation a nd backfill.
19. Prior to the issuance o f building permits, the appli ca nt shall co mplete a
human hea lth risk assess ment (HHRA) to evaluate the potenti al for vapor
intrusio n of known so il ga s co ntaminates, the co ncentratio n of
t richloroethy l ene (TC E) and t he co n ce ntrati on s of perch loroethylene (P CE),
into the proposed project at levels of un acceptabl e risk. If a n unacc ep table
ri sk is identified, the app li can t shall deve lo p a remedia l act ion plan to reduce
co nta minants to be low levels of reg ul atory concern. Any remediatio n
activities, such as so il vapor extraction, sha ll be performed by qualified and
lice nse d p rofessiona l s in the partic ul ar prob lem identified and all work shal l
Page 4 of 8
File No. PL 15-280
5935 Temple City Boulevard
be perfo rmed under the supervision of the approp ri ate regulatory oversight
progra m .
20. Prior to the disturbance of any suspect asbestos-containing ma terials at the
project site, a compre hens ive survey des ign ed to determ i ne if the sus pect
m aterials are regula ted sha ll be comp l et ed by the app li cant. If suc h
ma t erials are identifie d and need to be disturbed, repaired, or removed, a
licensed abatement con t ractor shall be consu lt ed t o p roper ly remove any
asbes tos in accordance with the requir ements of SCAQMD Rul e 1403.
21. Noise an d grou ndb orne vibra t i on cons truction activities whose spec ific
location on the Project Site (e.g., operatio n of compressors and generators,
cemen t mi xin g, genera l truck idling) sha ll be conducted as far as possib l e
fro m the neare st noise and vibration -sensit ive land uses.
22. W he n poss i ble, construction activities shall be schedu led so as to avo id
operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, wh i ch causes high
no ise level s.
23 . Flex ib le sound control curtains shall be place d around all drilling
appa ratu ses, drill rigs, and j ackhammers when in use.
24. The project contractor shall use the newest available power construction
equipment with stan dard recommended noise shiel din g and muffling
devices.
25. The local p ower grid shou ld be used fo r all feasible eq uip ment to limit
ge nera tor noise. No generat ors larger tha n 25 KVA should be used and, i n
cases w here a gene rato r is necessa ry, it sh o uld have a m ax imu m noise
m uffling capac ity and be operat ed at the lowest power se tting required to
m i nimize th e resu lting noise . All variable message/sig n boa rds sha ll be solar
powered or connected to th e local powe r grid.
26. Tempora ry no i se barriers shou ld be made of noi se -resistant material
su fficient to achieve a Sound Transmissio n Cla ss (S TC) rat i ng of STC 30 or
g rea t er, based on so und tran smis sion loss data taken accord in g to ASTM
Tes t M eth o d E90. Such a barrier may provide as much as a 10 dB insertion
loss, provid ed it is pos itioned as close as possible to the noise source or to
the rece ptors. To be effe ctiv e, th e barrier mu st be long and tall enough (a t
l eas t eig ht feet ta ll ) to comp letely b l ock the line -of-sight between the noise
Page 5 o f 8
File No. PL 15-28 0
59 35 Temple City Boulevard
source and the receptors. The gaps between adj acent panels must be f il led
in to avoid having noise penetrate directly through t he barrier.
27. Al l cons t ruction t r ucks shall be r estricted to truck routes approved by the
City, w hic h shall avoi d resident i al areas and other sensit ive receptors t o the
extent feasible. The contractor sha ll provide the proposed truck routes to
the City Engineer prior to the issuance of demolition, grading, and building
permits.
28 . Tw o weeks prior to the commencement of construction at the project site,
notificati on shall be provided to the immediate sur ro undin g off-site
residen ti al and school properties that discloses the construction schedule,
includ in g the various types of activit ies an d equipment that would be
occurr ing throughout t he duration of the construction period.
29. Eq uipment warm -up areas, water tanks, and equipment storage areas shall
be located a minimum o f 45 feet from abutting sensitive recepto rs.
30. Prior to the issuance of buildi ng permits, the app lic ant shall p r epare and
subm it a traffic calming pl an for t he alleyway to include speed humps, bats
dots, directional paveme nt m ark i ngs, speed li mit si gns (15 MPH), no parking
signs, a nd a stop bar at Woodruff Avenue.
31. Prior to th e issuance of bu il ding permits, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a pedestrian access and circu lat ion plan for the site to include
treatments at the entries/exits of the at-grade parking l ot and within the
alley.
Condition Pertaining to the Maintenance of the Property
32. CC&R required: t hat a m eth o d for continual ma i ntenance of common areas
shal l be provided in the Covenants, Cond itions and Restrictions (CC&R's);
and t hat the document sha ll incorpo rate maintenance provisions for
drainage devices, the centra l garden, the park in g lots, the exterior of the
structures and all yard areas determined by the City to be common areas.
Spec ifi cally, the CC&R's shall state that it shall be the responsibility of the
Homeowner's Associat i on to maintain the exterior of the building in a
uniform color and condition. Additiona ll y, the CC &R's shall include a
provis ion that the City of Templ e City, L.A. County Sher iff's Departm ent , and
L.A. County Fire De part ment hav e aut hori zat io n to fully enfo rce th e "No
Page 6 o f 8
File No. PL 15 -280
5935 Temple City Boulevard
Parking" prohibition i n t he designated fi re lane, including issu ing citations
and towing of vehicles parked in said fire l ane. The CC&R's shall preclude
t h e Association from leasing the guest parking and commercia l customer
parkin g to tenants or owners ofthe res idential units . The CC&R's shall make
it the responsibility o f the Association to ensure that commercial customer
pa rking and guest pa rkin g is not used by res id ents. The content and the
provision s in the CC&R's shal l be subject to the review and approval of the
City Attorney prior to approva l of the Fin al Map.
General Conditions
33. The applicant and property owners, and their successors in interest, shall
ind em nify and defend the City of Temp le City and its officers, employees,
and agents from and against all liability and costs relat in g to the City's
ac tions concerning this project, including (without lim itation) any award of
li t igat ion expenses i n favor o f any perso n or entity who seeks to challenge
the va li dity of any of the City's actions or decisions in connection with this
project. The City shal l have the sole ri ght to choose its cou nsel and property
owners shall reimburse the City's expenses incurred in its defenses of any
lawsui t challenging the City's actions concerning this project.
34. The approval of the proj ect shall ex pire 24 months f rom the date of
app rova l. If the project w ill not comme nce or the final map is not to be
recorded prior to the expiration date, the developer/subdivider may apply
in wri ting to the Commun ity Development Department Director at least
fo rty (40) days before the expiration da t e fo r an extensio n of time on the
app roval.
35. Bu i lding permits shall be obta in ed f or all construction activ ities of the
project including tenant i m provements.
36 . Construction plans or tenant improvement plans sha ll i nclude a sheet
conta in i ng each page of these conditions of approval at the time of build ing
p lan c heck submitta l.
37. Prio r to the issuance of t he Certificate of Occupan cy, a comprehensive sign
program shall be prepared for the four commercia l units within the
deve l opment. The sign program shall be reviewed and approved by the
Commun ity Developme nt Dep artment.
Page 7 o f 8
File No. PL 15-280
5935 Temp le City Bo ulevard
38. All signs for the business shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Community Development Department. The p roposed signs il lustrated in the
drawi ngs and re nd erings are not approved as part of this request.
39. Disposa l of Construction Waste : no construction act ivity waste or mate rial of
any kind, in cluding plaster, cement, paint, mud, or any other type o f debris or
li quid shall be allowed to be disposed of in the st reet or gutter, storm drain,
or sewer system. Al l construction debris spills shall be removed daily and
shall use necessary dust control measu re s. Failure to comply with this
cond ition will result in charges filed by the Distri ct Attorney.
40. This conditional use permit shall automatica ll y term inate and be of no further
force or effect in the event the use approved herei n is discontinued or
abandoned for a period of six consecutive months.
41. This approval and t hese conditions may be modified or revoked by the
granting body (the Plann i ng Commission) should it be determined that the
project approved herein is detrimenta l to the public health, sa f ety, or we lfare;
is operated or maintained contrary to these conditions of approval or any
federal , state, or loca l law; or is operated or maintained so as to constitute a
public nuis ance. Such modification or revocation sha ll occu r at a noticed
publ i c hear ing and in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 -lF-40 of
Temple City Zoning Code.
42. By carrying out the project approved herein o r otherwise using o r exercising
t h is approval, the app li cant ack nowl edges and accepts all of th e conditions
imposed. The applicant acknowledges that failure to comply with these
cond itions of approva l may be cause for revoc ation of the approval. These
conditions are binding upon the applica nt, the current and future property
owners, and any other party using or exe rc i sing this approval.
Pa g e 8 of 8
To:
City of Temple City
BUILDING & SAFETY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Michael D. Forbes, AICP, Community Developm ent Director
Hesty Liu
From: Bu i lding Officiai/AJ/DT/JK
Address : 5935 Temple City Bou l evard
Application No.: 140000244/TIM No.73141
Date: 12/5/2014
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Mixed use project co nsi sting of eight comme rcial condo units on the ground l evel and 75
residential co ndominium units on the f loors of t wo through five . Parking i s located be hind the
comm er cia l un its on t h e gr o und l eve l as well as in the one-leve l subterra n ea n parking garage.
1. School Dev el opmental Fee s shall be pa i d to the School District prior to the issuan ce ofthe
bui l ding perm it.
2. Fees shall be paid to the County of Los An geles Sanitation District prior to issuance of th e
building permit.
3 . The build i ng shall be addressed as 5935 Temple City Boulevard, and an application to
assign unit numbe rs sha ll b e fi l ed with City prior to p lan check submittal.
4. In accorda nce w it h parag r ap h 5538(b) o f the Ca lifo rni a Bu sine ss and Profe ss ion s Code,
p l ans ar e to be prep ared and st amp ed by a lice n se d ar chitect.
5. Structura l ca lcu l ati on s prepared un d er th e direct io n of an architect, civil en gin ee r or
structura l engin ee r shall b e provid ed.
6. A geotechn i ca l and so i ls invest igat ion report is r equi red, the duties of th e soi ls engineer
of record, as in di cat e d on th e first sh eet ofthe approved plans, sh all include th e following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Pag e 1 I V.20140822
Ob se rv ation of cl ea red areas and be n che s prepared to rec eive fill;
Ob se rvation of th e removal of a ll u nsuitab le so i ls and oth er materia ls;
Th e approva l of so il s to be used as fill material;
Inspection of com paction and placement of fill;
App lication No .: 140000244
e. The testing of compacted fills; and
f. The inspection of review of drainage devices.
7. The owner shall retain the soils engineer preparing the Preliminary So i ls and/or
Geotechnical Investigation accepted by t he City for observa t ion of all grad i ng, site
preparation , and compaction testing. Observation and testing shall not be performed by
another soils and/or geotechnical engineer unless the subsequent soils and/or
geotechnical engineer submits and has accepted by the Public Works Department, a new
Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical Investigation .
8. Prior to permit issuance the pdf copy of the soils report shall be provided by the applicant
9. A grading and drainage plan shall be approved prior to issuance of the building permit.
The grading and drainage plan shall indicate how all storm drainage including contributory
drainage from adjacent lots is carried to the publ ic way or drainage structure approved
to receive storm water.
10. All State of Cal iforn ia disability access regulations for accessibil ity and adaptabi l ity shall
be complied with.
11. Approval is required from the Los Angeles County Health Department for restaurants .
12. The building permit will not be issued until the property has been surveyed and the
boundaries marked by a land surveyor lic ensed by the State of California.
13. Foun d ation inspection will not be made until the excavation has been surveyed and the
d epth and location of the footings h as been dete r mined to be in accordance with the
approved plans by a land surveyo r lic ensed by the State of California. TH IS NOTE IS TO BE
PLACED ON THE FOUNDATION PLAN IN A PROMINENT LOCATION.
14. No form work or other construction materials will be permitted to encroach in to adjacent
property w ithout th e written approva l of the affected p ro perty owner.
15. Separate gr ease interceptors sh all be insta ll ed fo r eac h restaurant sized per the current
Plumbing Code but no less than 750 ga ll on.
16. Electrical plan c heck is required.
17. Mechan ica l plan check is required.
18. Plumbing p l an check is requ ired.
19. Project shall co m ply with the CaiG reen requirements.
20. Demolitio n permit is required for any existing buildings which are to be demolished.
Page 2/ V.20140822 Application No.: 140000244
21. All fire sprinkler hangers must be designed and their location approved by an engineer or
an architect. Calcu lations must be provided indicating that the hangers are designed to
carry the tributary weight of the water filled pipe plus a 250 pound point load. A plan
indication this information must be stamped by the engineer or the architect and
submitted for approval prior t o issuance of the building permit.
22. Separate permit is required for Fire Sprinklers
23. A parcel/tract map shall be processed prior t o issuance of the building permit.
24. Projects shall comply with the requirements of the NPDES (NATIONAL POLLUTION
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM ) prior to issuance of a Demolition, Grading & Building
permit. These include requirements for sediment control, erosion control, and
construction activities control to be implemented on the project site.
25. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program ("SWPPP") is required to be submitted. The
SWPPP shall contain details of best management practices, including desilting basins or
other temporary drainage or control measures, or both, as may be necessary to control
construction-re lated pollutants which originate from the site as a result of construction
related activities . No grading permit will be issued until the SWPPP has been submitted
to and accepted by the building official.
26. For sites where the disturbed area is one acre or more, applicants must file a Notice of
Intent (NOI) and a State SWPPP and obtain a Waste Discharge Identification number
(WDID No.). Both the NOI and the WDID No. must be stated on the first sheet ofthe
plans.
27. All applicable requirements in the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP)
as one of t he model programs under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permits to develop and implement programs for stormwater
management within the County of Los Angeles shall be complied with.
28. A building shall b e considered as se parate and distinct buildings for the purpose of
determining area limitations, con tinuity of firewalls, limitation of number of stories and
type of construction sha ll meet all the conditions l isted in the Special Provisions per
Section 510.2.
29. The building below the horizonta l assembly per Condition 6.2 of Section 510.2 protected
throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section
903.3.1.1 shall be permitted to be multiple Group A occupancy, each with an occupant
load of l ess than 300.
Page 3 I V.20140822 A p plicat io n No.: 140000244
30. For buildings with more than one story above grade plane and containing mixed
occupancies, the ratio between the actual building area and allowable area shall not
exceed the values specified in Section 506.5.2. Incidental use areas such as lobbies and
storage rooms shall be included in the total aggregate floor area when performing
allowable area calcu lations.
31. Each portion of a building, including but not limited to the recreation r oom on the 2nd
floor, shall be individually classified in acc o rdance with Section 302.1. Where a bui l ding
contains more than one occupancy group, the building or portion thereof shall comply
with the applicable provisions of Section 508.2, 508.3 or 508.4, or a combination of
these sections .
32. Individual occupancies shall be separated from adjacent occupanci es in accordance with
Table 508.4.
33. Parking garage not meeting the criteria of natural ventilation per Section 406.3 .3.1 shall
be designed as enclosed parking garage. Mechanical ventila t ion in accordance with
Ca l ifornia Building Cod e Section 406.4.2 i s required for the enclosed parking garage.
34. The building elements shall have a fire-resistance rating not less than that specified in
Table 601. Exterior bearing walls of Type lilA building shall have fire-resistance ra ting
not less than 2 hours.
35. An approved automatic sprinkle r system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 shall be
allowed to be substituted for 1-hour fire-resistance-rated construction as required by
Table 601, provi ded such system is not otherwise required by other provisions of the
code or used for an allowable area increase in accordance w ith Section 506.3 or an
allowable he ight in crease in accordance with Section 504.2. The 1-hou r substitution for
the fire resistance of exterior walls shall not be perm itted.
36. Exterior walls shall have a fire-res i stance rating not les s than that specified in Table 602.
Exterior non-beari ng walls of Type lil A build i ng of fire-se paration distance equal or more
than 10 feet but l ess than 30 feet shall have fire-re sistance rating not l ess than 1 hour.
37 . Cornices, eave overhangs, exteri o r ba lconies and sim il ar projection s extending beyond
the exterior wa ll shall conform to th e requirements of Section 705.2 an d Section 1406.
Projections shall not extend any cl oser to the line use d to determine the fire separation
distance than sh own in Tab le 705 .2.
38. The maximum area of unprotected and protecte d openin gs permitted in an exterior wa ll
i n any story of a building shall n ot exceed the percentages specified in T able 705.8. The
maximum ar ea of unprotected and protected openings permitted in an exterior wall of
an enclosed parking garage equipped w ith automati c f ire sprinklers of fire separation
distance equa l or more than 10 feet but l ess than 15 feet on the f irst floor are 45% and
45%, respect ively.
Page 4 I V.20140822 Application No.: 140000244
39. Interior exit stairways and ram ps shall termin ate at an exit discharge or a pub li c way.
Interior exit stairways and ramps shall be permitted to terminate at an exit passageway
complying with Section 10231 provided the ex it passageway terminates at an exit
discharge or a pub lic way.
40. Dwelling units in a build ing consisting ofthree or more dwelling units or four or more
condominium units shall meet the requirements of the California Building Code Chapt er
11A.
41. Common-use areas serving multifam ily dwellings shall meet the requirements of the
California Building Code Chapter llA.
42 . When assigned parking spaces are provided for a resident or a group of residents, at
least 2 percent of the assigned parking spaces serving covered mu ltifamily dwelling units
shall be access ibl e in each type of parking facility. At least one space of each type of
parking facility shall be made accessible even if the t otal number exceeds 2 percent.
43. Accessibility t o public buildings, public accommodations/ commerci al buildings, and
public housing shall comply with Chapte r llB ofthe Building Code.
44. Parki ng spaces complying with Section 118-502 shall be provided in accordance with
Table 118-2 08 .2 except as required by Section s 118-208.2.1, 118-208.2.21 and 118-
208.2.3.
The f ollow in g are general requirements:
1. The in iti al plan check fee w i ll cover the initi al p lan check and one recheck only. Additional
review required beyond the first recheck shall be paid f or on an hourly basis in accordance
with the current fee schedule.
2. Th e se cond sheet of build ing p l an s is to li st all co nditions of approva l an d to include a copy
of the Plann i ng Commi ss ion Deci sion l ett er. Thi s information shall be in corporated into
the plans prior to th e first subm ittal for p lan check.
3. W h en a change of occupancy res ul ts i n a structure be ing reclassified to a higher
occupancy category, as pe r CBC 3406.4 the structure shall conform to the seismic
requirements for a new structure.
4. Add it ion s, alteration s/ repairs and c hanges of use or occ up ancy in all buildings and
st ructures shall comply w ith th e provisions fo r new bui l dings and st ructures except as
otherwise provided in Chapter 34 of the Building Code in effect.
Page 5 I V.20140822 Applicat ion No.: 140000244
5. South Coast Air Quality Management District must be contacted prior to any demolition
or renovat ion. Call (909) 396-2000 for further information. Failure to comply with the
provis ions of Rule 1403 may result in a penalty of up to $25,000 per day.
6 . For all restaurants if not already existing, a grease interceptor shall be installed in
accordance with the cu rrent Plumbing Code.
7. All fire spri nkler hangers must be designed and their location approved by an engineer or
an architect. Calculations must be provided indicating that the hangers are designed to
carry the tributary weight of the water filled pipe plus a 250 pound point load . A plan
indication this informatio n must be stamped by the engineer or the architect and
submitted for approval prior to issuance of the building permit.
8. A geotechn i cal and soils investigation report is/will be provided for any of the follow ing
conditions :
a. A tract o r parcel map is being processed as part of the deve lopment.
b. The allowable soil bearing pressure used for the f ou ndation design exceeds 1,500
pou n ds per square foot .
c. Subterranean work which is deeper than three feet at any point measured from
the top of adjacent grade.
d. Unusual soils conditions are encountered which effect the design or stability of
the structure.
9 . Where a so il s report is required, the duties of the soils engineer of record, as indicated on
the first sheet of the approved plans, shall include the following:
a. Observ ation of cleared ar eas and benches prepared to receive fill;
b. Observ ation ofthe removal of all unsuitab le soils and other materials;
c. The approva l of soils to be used as fill material;
d. Inspection of compacti o n and placement of f il l;
e . The testi ng of compacted f il ls; and
f . The in sp ect ion of review o f d r ainage devices .
10. The owner shall retain the so i l s eng i neer prepari ng the Preliminary Soils and/or
Geotech n ica l In vestigation acce pted by t he City for observatio n of all grading, si t e
p r eparatio n, and com pactio n tes ting. Obse r vati on an d test ing sh all not be performed b y
another soi ls an d/or geotechnical eng i neer un l ess the subseque nt soils and/or
geotechnica l e ngineer submits an d has accepted by t he Public Works Department, a new
Preliminary Soi ls an d/or Geotec hni ca l Investigat ion.
11. A permit from CA L-OSHA sha ll be obtained prior to i ssuance of t he building permit for
con st ru ct ion o f tren ches o r excavations greater than five feet in de pt h ; the constructi on
of any bui ld ing, st r uctu re, sc affo lding or falsework more than three stories or 36 feet in
height; or the de m o li tion of any bui lding or structure, or the dismantling of scaffo lding or
falsework, mo re than three sto ri es or 36 feet in height.
Page 6 I V.20140822 Application No.: 140000244
12. Projects shall comply with the requ irements of the NPDES (NATIONAL POLLUTION
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM) prior to issuance of a Demolition, Grading & Building
permit. These include requirements for sediment control, erosio n control, and
constructio n activ ities control t o be imp lemented on the project site.
Page 7 I V.20140822 Application No.: 140000 244
City of Temple City
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
OFF-S ITE IMPROVEMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
To: M ich ae l D. Forbes, A ICP, Community Development Director
Hesty Liu
From: Office ofthe City Engineer /DR/YR
Ad dress: 5935 Temple City Bou levard
Application No.: 140000244/TIM No.73141
Date : 12/8/2014 revised 5/31/2016
PROJECT DES CRIPT ION
Mixe d u se project co n sisting of eight comme rcia l condo units on the ground leve l and 75
res i dential condom in i u m un its on the f l oors of two through f ive. Parking is located behind the
commercia l units on t h e gr ound leve l as we ll as in the one-leve l subterranean parking garage.
ENGINEERING FEES
1. Prior to issua n ce of grading, bu il di ng or other permits as appropriate, the applicant shall
pay all necessa ry fees to the City.
2 . If a new sewe r li n e/conn ectio n i s in st alle d, a fee w ill be re quired in addi t io n to th e fees paid
to the Co un ty of Lo s Angeles Sa n itat i o n District, and sha ll be paid prior to buil ding perm it
iss uance. Co ntact t h e Ut il iti es De partm ent fo r fu rthe r inf orm at ion.
3. A sepa rat e pub li c w orks p er m it and p ay m ent of fee is re qui r ed for all wo rk i n t h e public
r ight-of -way.
O FF-SITE IMPROV EM ENTS RE Q UIREMENTS IN PUBLI C RI G HT-O F-WAY
Se p a rate plans fo r i mprovements withi n th e public right-of-way are not requi r ed. However, prior
to i ssuance of a bu i ld in g an d/or grad in g p ermit, all necessary improvements within the pu b lic
r i ght -of -way sh all be sh ow n on bu il d i ng o r gr adi ng pl ans i n acco r dance with established Ci t y
standa rds or as directed by t he City Engineer and/or his/her designee.
Page 1 Application No.: 140000244
1-The following are required for the off-site improvements:
Temple City Boulevard & Woodruff Avenue
1. Install new curb ramp at the corner of Temple City Boulevard and Woodruff
Av en ue i n accordance with SPPWC St andard Plan 111-5 and as d irected by the
City En gi neer or his/her designee.
2. Instal l new driveway approach in accordance with SPPWC Standard Plan 110-2,
and as directed by t he City Engineer or his/her designee.
3. Close existing driveway apron, an d install necessary im provements (parkway,
landscape, sidewalk, cu rb and gutter, an y others as appl icable) to mat ch
require d adjacent section s, and as directed by the City Eng i neer or his/her
designee.
4 . Insta ll n ew concrete si dewalk alo ng the length of the property frontage in
acc ordance with SP PWC Standard Plan 113-2, and as directed by the City
Eng i neer and /or his/her designee.
5. Install new curb and gu tter along the length of the property frontage in
accor dan ce with SP PWC stan d ard plan 120-2, and as directed by the City
Engin eer or his/her design ee.
6. Insta ll new street light to match existing street light standards in the street block,
and as di rected by t h e City Eng ineer or his/her designee.
7. Rehabil itate existing AC street pa v ement along the length of the property
frontage to the cen terline of the st r eet as ind icated be lo w, and as directed by
the City Engineer or his /h er des ig nee:
Grind ex i stin g pave m ent to a depth of 2" and overlay new AC.
8 . Underground al l se rvice s to the property.
II-Pr io r to any p er mit i ss uanc e, Sewer Study sha ll b e reviewed and approved by the
City Eng ine er and o r h is /h er de signee. Sub divid er sh a ll comp ly with mitigati on
meas ures of t h e approved sewer study to t he satisfact ion of t h e City Engineer and
or hi s/her d esi gn ee .
Page 2 Application No .: 140000244
Page 3
The following are general requirements for off-site improvements:
1. All improvements are to be des ig ned, installed and completed at the sole
expense ofthe applicant/developer/property owner .
2. The applicant/devel o per/p roperty owner sh all design and construct the
improv ements to the satisfaction and approval of the City Engineer or his/her
designee.
3. All w o rk shall be done in accordance with Stand ard Plans for Public Works
Construction (SPPWC), and /or as directed by the City Engineer or his /her
designee.
4. Project shall meet all requirements ofth e National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) related to pollutants; runoff o r non-stormwater discharges.
5. All existing damaged o r off-gra de curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be removed
and replaced as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
6. Any existing improvements damaged or mad e off-g rade during construction,
shall be removed and replaced in accordance with appropriate standards, and
as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
7. Bench Marks, Center Line Ties , and any other Survey Monumentation, sha ll be
esta bli shed and/o r re plac ed acc ordi ng ly at the comp letion of th e project.
8 . New trees shall be one of the approv ed types by the City for trees in publ i c right-
of-way, o r as directed by the City En ginee r or his/her desig nee. Trees shall be
insta ll ed in the parkway with a low drip irrigation syst em. Root barriers shall be
ins t alled . A 48"x48" street t ree cover shall be instal led where required by the
Cit y Eng in ee r or his/her de signee.
9. When required , ex i sting street pa ve m ent shall b e re habil itated alon g the length
of the prop erty fro ntage to th e ce nte rl i n e of th e street as indi ca t ed below, and
as directed by t h e City Engin eer or h i s/her designee:
Install Typ e II slurry on ex istin g AC pavement.
or
Grind exist in g pavement to a depth of 2" and overlay new AC.
o r
Remov e and re co n struct existin g p ave m e nt . New street sec t io n to match
existing adjacen t street section, but sha ll not be less than 4" AC, 4" CAB on
95% compacted base.
or
Applicat ion No.: 1 40000244
Pay in-lieu fee f o r the required rehab to the City. City will use the in-lieu
fees in the future for street rehabilitations as necessary.
10. All new driveways shall be according to SPPWC Standard Plan 110-2, Type B o r
C with the minimum width established by Planning and /or Los Angeles County
Fire Department.
11. All existing noncomplying driveway aprons shall be constructed in acc orda nce
with applicable SPPWC standards .
12. Top of driveway apron X shall be 5 feet minimum from any trees, power poles,
traffic signal controllers, electric services or similar improvements in the public
right of way.
13. When required, all existing driveways aprons to be closed shall be removed and
replaced with necessary improvements (parkway, landscape, sidewalk, curb and
gutter, any others as applicable) to match required adjacent sections, and as
directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
14. All existing and proposed utilities shall be conveyed to the site underground .
15. New street lights shall match existing street light standards in the street block,
and as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
If required by City, a bond shall be provided for required Public Improvements. Bond Cost for
the Public Improvements shall be calculated based on latest cost unit prices adopted by the
County of los Angeles.
Pa ge4 Application No .: 140000244
(
TRACT MAP REQUIREMENTS
Following information is provided for applicant's convenience. Project shall comply with all
applicable requirements for Tract Maps.
1. A final tract map prepared by or under the direction of a registered civil engineer or licensed
land survey or shall b e submitted t o and approved by the City of Temple City prior to being
filed with the Los Angeles Coun ty Recorder.
2. A soils report is required.
3. A preliminary t r act map guarantee 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 los Angeles County Recorder.
4. Easements sha ll not be granted o r recorded within any area proposed to be dedicated,
offered f or dedication, or granted for use as a public street, alley, highway, right of access,
building restricti on, or other easements until after the final tract map is approved by the
City of Temple City and filed with the los Angeles County Recorder; unless such easement
is subordinated t o 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 f i ling of t he f inal tract map.
5 . Monumentatio n of tract map boundaries, street centerlines, and lot boundaries is required
if the map is based on a field su rvey.
6. All cond itions f rom City of Temple City Departments and Divisions sha ll be incorporated
into th e tract ma p prior to su bmi tting the tract map for review .
7. In accordance with California Government Code Sections 66442 and/or 66450,
documentation shall be provided indicating the mathematical accuracy and survey ana lysis
of th e tract map and the correctness of all certificates . Proof of ownership and proof of
original sig n atures sha ll al so be p rovid ed.
8. Pr oof of Tax clearance shall be provided at the time o f tract map review submittal.
9. Upon submittal of th e p arc el map for rev i ew by th e City of Tem pl e City, a letter sig ned by
both the subdivid er and the en gin ee r shall be provided w h ic h indi cates that th ese
i nd ivi d u als agree to submit one (1) blueprints and one sepia mylar an d pdf copy on a CD of
the recorded map to the City of Temple City Public Works Department.
10. Prior Buildin g and Grad in g Pl an submittal for review, a traffic and parking study i s to be
prepared b y a California-regist ered profe ss ion al traffic engineer fo ll owi ng the City's traff ic
study guidelines . The developer's traffic consu ltant should consult w it h the City's traffic
engineer to determin e the scope of st udy before proceeding with the p reparation of traffic
study.
11. Access to parki ng areas is shown to be via the existing 20ft alley connecting the City
parking lot on the south to Woodruff Avenue on the north. Based on the trip generation
estimate, a separate section on accessibility and capacity ofthis alley must be included in
Page 5 Application No.: 140000244
the traffic study.
12. A signage and striping plan for internal circulation within the parking garage has to be
submitted for the City's traffic engineer's review and approval prior building permit
issuance.
13. Additional conditions may be required per f in dings of the said traffic study.
14. Alley dedication may be required if Fire Department requires the alley to be enlarged.
15. Prior to final map approval the subdi v ider shall submit sewer plans to upgrade of the
sewerage system as found to be inadequate per the sewer area study prepared by Cal Land
Engineering (Segment MH 281 to MH 507 is i nadequate).
16. Prior to final map approval City may require a performance bond to ensure the upgrade of
the sewer main.
Page6 Applicatio n No.: 140000244
Memo
To:
From:
cc:
·Date:
Hesty Liu, City of Temple City
Dan Dawson, ATE
H eather lmgrund, Rincon Consu l tants
March 3 1,2015
ATTACHMENT F
-ASSOCIATED
TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERS
Re: Te rraces at Temple City Proj ect-Parking Forecasts
ATE 1502 1 M03
Hesty,
Th e purpose of this m emo is to provide you w ith the prelim in ary parking demand est i mates for
the proj ect. Note that th e proposed parking su ppl y may affect the mi x of retai l and resta u rant square
footages assumed fo r the traffi c impact st udy.
Parking Supply
The pro j ect i ncludes 150 p ark ing spaces for th e reside nti al co ndomi niums (138 spaces in the
pa rki ng garage + 12 spaces in th e surface grad e par ki n g lot). These spaces wou ld not be ava il ab l e
for the commercial uses.
The p ro j ect includes 66 spaces in the surface parking lot to be shared by the 15,000 SF of
comme rc i a l uses and co nd ominium guests. Two of th e park in g spaces are d es ignate d as l oading
spaces. Th us the effective supply for the comme rcia l uses and co nd ominium guests is 64 spaces.
Scenario 1
The proj ect desc riptio n ass u mes that 50% o f th e commercial space cou l d b e all ocated for retail
uses (7,500 SF) an d up to 50 % for resta u ra nt uses (7,500 SF). Peak parking demands were forecas t
for this scena ri o using the shared park in g m ode l deve loped by ULI .1 A 10% mi xe d-u se capture
rate was appl i ed in the ca l cu l ati ons to acco unt for condominium res idents using the retai l and
res taura nt uses as we ll as th e inte ract i on between the reta il and res tau ran t use s.
Ta bl es 1 and 2 su mmarize the weekday an d weeke nd peak park i ng d emands fo r this sce nar io
(park ing demand work sheet s are attac hed for reference).
1 Shared Parking, Urban Land In stitute, Second Ed iti on, 2005.
As shown, the restaurant space generates relati vely high pa r king demands when compared to
the re ta i I uses . This sce nari o resu l ts in a tota l peak parking d e mand of 98 spaces o n weekdays and
129 spaces on weekends for the retail, res taurant, and condo guests-which exceeds the 64-space
pa rki ng suppl y.
Table 1
Peak Shared Parking Demands-Sce nario 1 -Weekdays
Peak Parking D e mand
Use Peak Period #Spaces
Retail (7,500 SF) 12:00 P.M.-1:00 P.M. 24 Sp aces
Re staurant (7,5 00 SF) 12:00 P.M.-1:00 P.M. 72 Spaces
Condo Guests 1 2:00 P.M.-1 :00 P.M. 2 Spaces
Total Parking Demand 98 Spaces
Tab le 2
Peak Shared Parking Demands -Scenario 1 -Weekends
Pe a k Parking Demand
Use Peak Pe riod #Spaces
Re tai l (7,500 S F) 12:00 P.M.-1:00 P.M. 24 Spaces
Restaurant (7,5 00 SF) 12:00 P.M.-1 :00 P.M . 103 Spaces
Condo Guests 12 :00 P.M.-1 :00 P.M. 2 Spaces
Tota l Parking Demand 129 Spaces
Sc e nario 2
Th e maximum a mou nt of restau ra nt space was determined based on the 64-space parking
supp l y being shared by the reta il , res taura nt and condo gu est s. Th e sh ared pa r kin g mod e l
fo und t h at th e 64-space pa rking supply could accomm odat e 1,150 SF of res taurant space and
13,85 0 SF of retai I space .
Tabl es 3 and 4 show the weekday and w eeke nd pea k park ing d em ands fo r this sce nari o (parking
de m a nd works heets are attac hed for refere nce).
Tab le 3
Pea k Shared Parking De m ands -Scenario 2 -W eekdays
Peak Parkin g Demand
Use Peak Period #Spaces
Retail (1 3,850 S F) 6:00 P.M.-8:00 P.M. 40 Spaces
Rest aurant (1,1 5 0 SF) 6:00 P.M.-8:00P.M. 9 Sp aces
Condo Guests 6:00 P.M.-8 :00 P.M. 11 Spaces
Tota l Parkin g D emand 60 Spaces
2
Table 4
Peak Shared Parking Demands w Scenario 2 -Weekends
Peak Parking Demand
Use Peak Period #Spaces
Retail (13,850 SF) 2:00 P.M.-3:00P.M. 51 Spaces
Restaurant (1 , 1 50 SF) 2:00 P.M.-3:00P.M. 11 Spaces
Condo Gu ests 2:00 P.M .-3:00 P.M. 2 Spaces
Total Parking Dem a n d 64 Spaces
3
PARKING DEMAND STUDY-5,250 SQUARE FEET RESTAURANT AND 2,000
SQUARE FEET RETAIL USE.
Weekend Parking Factors:
Land -Use Size Demand Rate Mixed-Peak Demand
Use
Condo (Gue sts ) 61 Units 0.15 1.00 9 Spaces
Restaurant (Visitors) 5.25 KSF 12.75 0.90 60 Spaces
Restaurant (employees) 5.25 KSF 2.25 1.00 12 Spaces
Retai l (Visitors) 2 KSF 3.2 0.90 6 Spaces
Retail (Employees) 2KSF 0.8 1.00 2 Spaces
Weekend Peak-Hour (12:00 p.m.) Parking Demand Calculation
Land Use Parking Peak Demand Base Supply
Ratio Number Required
Condo Guest Pa rking 20% 9 Spaces 2 Spaces
Restaurant (Visitors) 100% 60 Spaces 60 Spaces
Restaurant 100% 12 Spaces 12 Spaces
(em p loyees)
Reta il (Visitors) 80% 6 Spaces 5 Spaces
Retail (Employees) 100% 2 Spaces 2 Spaces
Total: 81 Spaces